■H»hr 




Class . 
Book.. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



.# 



OUTLINES 



THEOLOGY. 



REV. A. ALEXANDER HODGE, 

PASTOE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FREDRICKSBURG, VIRGINIA. 



NEW Y E K : 
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 

531 BROADWAY. 

1860. 






d**&£* 



3> 



<^-\5 



*>. 



\%W<> 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 

ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 



BTEBEOTYPED BY FEINTED BY 

SMITH & McDOUGAL, E. O. JENKINS, 

82 & 84 Beekman-st., N. Y. 26 Frankforfc-st. 



PREFACE. 

In introducing this book to the reader, I have only a 
single word to say upon two points : first, as to the uses 
which I regard this form of exhibiting theological truth as 
being specially qualified to subserve ; and, secondly, as to 
the sources from which I have drawn the materials com- 
posing these " Outlines." 

As to the first point, I have to say, that the conception 
and execution of this work originated in the experience of 
the need for some such manual of theological definitions 
and argumentation, in the immediate work of instructing 
the members of my own pastoral charge. The several 
chapters were in the first instance prepared and used in the 
same form in which they are now printed, as the basis of a 
lecture delivered otherwise extemporaneously to my congre- 
gation every Sabbath night. In this use of them, I found 
these preparations successful beyond my hopes. The con- 
gregation, as a whole, were induced to enter with interest 
upon the study even of the most abstruse questions. Hav- 
ing put this work thus to this practical test, I now offer it 
to my brethren in the ministry, that they may use it, if 
they will, as a repertory of digested material for the doc- 
trinal instruction of their people, either in Bible classes, or 
by means of a congregational lecture, I offer it also as an 



PREFACE. 



attempt to supply an acknowledged public want, as a syl- 
labus of theological study for the use of theological students 
generally, and for the use of those many laborious preach- 
ers of the gospel who can not command the time, or who 
have not the opportunity, or other essential means, to study 
the more expensive and elaborate works from which the 
materials of this compend have been gathered. 

The questions have been retained in form, not for the 
purpose of adapting the book in any degree for catechetical 
instruction, but as the most convenient and perspicuous 
method of presenting an " outline of theology" so con- 
densed. This same necessity of condensation I would also 
respectfully plead as in some degree an excuse for some of 
the instances of obscurity in definition and meagerness of 
illustration, which the reader will observe. 

In the second place, as to the sources from which I 
have drawn the materials of this book, I may for the most 
part refer the reader to the several passages, where the 
acknowledgment is made as the debt is incurred. In gen- 
eral, however, it is proper to say that I have, with his per- 
mission, used the list of questions given by my father to 
his classes of forty-five and six. I have added two or three 
chapters which his course did not embrace, and have in 
general adapted his questions to my new purpose, by omis- 
sions, additions, or a different distribution. To such a de- 
gree, however, have they directed and assisted me, that I 
feel a confidence in offering the result to the public which 
otherwise would have been unwarrantable. In the fre- 
quent instances in which I have possessed his published 
articles upon the subjects of the following chapters, the 



PREFACE. V 

reader will find that I have drawn largely from them. It 
is due to myself, however, to say, that except in two in- 
stances, " The Scriptures the only Rule of Faith and Judge 
of Controversies," and the " Second Advent," I have never 
heard delivered nor read the manuscript of that course of 
theological lectures which he has prepared for the use of 
his classes subsequently to my graduation. In the in- 
stances I have above excepted, I have attempted little 
more, in the preparation of the respective chapters of this 
book bearing those titles, than to abridge my father's lec- 
tures. In every instance I have endeavored to acknowl- 
edge the full extent of the assistance I have derived from 
others, in which I have, I believe, uniformly succeeded, 
except so far as I am now unable to trace to their original 
sources some of the materials collected by me in my class 
manuscripts, prepared fourteen years ago, while a student 
of theology. This last reference relates to a large element 
in this book, as I wrote copiously, and after frequent oral 
communication with my father, both in public and pri- 
vate. 

A. A. Hodge. 

R'kedijricksburg, May, 1860. 



C ONTBNTS. 



PAGB 

CHAPTER I. 

BEING OF GOD 11 



CHAPTER II. 

THEOLOGY— ITS SOURCES 37 

CHAPTER III. 

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 4© 

CHxlPTER IV. 

INSPIRATION 67 



CHAPTER V. 

THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS THE ONLY RULE OF 

FAITH AND JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES 78 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE 90 

CHAPTER VH. 

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 101 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, INCLUDING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, THE 
ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON, THE PERSONALITY, DIVINITY, AND 
ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND THE SEVERAL PROP- 
ERTIES AND MUTUAL RELATIONS OF THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD.. 129 



V1U CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTEE IX. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL 163 



CHAPTEE X. 

PREDESTINATION 174 

CHAPTEE XL 

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD 186 

CHAPTEE XII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS 196 

CHAPTEE XIII. 

PROVIDENCE 204 

CHAPTEE XIV. 

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN 216 

CHAPTEE XV. 

THE COVENANT OF WORKS 228 



CHAPTEE XVI. 

SIN— ITS NATURE; ADAM'S SIN, AND THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF TO HIS 

POSTERITY 233 



CHAPTEE XVII. 

ORIGINAL SIN 24T 

CHAPTEE XVIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF FREE AGENCY AND OF HUMAN INABILITY 260 

CHAPTEE XIX. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE 270 

CHAPTEE XX. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 281 



CONTENTS. IX 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XXI. 

THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST 289 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION AND EXTENT 299 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST 319 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST 321 

CHAPTER XXV. . 

EFFECTUAL CALLING 333 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

REGENERATION 343 

CHAPTER XXVn. 

FAITH 352 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

THE UNION OF THE BELIEVER WITH CHRIST 369 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

REPENTANCE ST5 

CHAPTER XXX. 

JUSTIFICATION 382 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

ADOPTION 398 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

SANCTIFICATION , 402: 



X CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

PERSEVERANCE OP THE SAINTS 



CHAPTER XXXIY. 

DEATH, AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH 430 

CHAPTER XXXV. 

THE RESURRECTION 440 

CHAPTER XXXYI. 

THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT 447 

CHAPTER XXXVII. 

HEAVEN AND THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENTS 450 

CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

THE SACRAMENTS 469 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

BAPTISM— ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, MODE, SUBJECTS, EFFICACY AND NECES- 
SITY 479 

CHAPTER XL. 

THE LORD'S SUPPER 503 



OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE BEING OF GOD. 



1. Can God be defined ? 

As the human mind is finite, and conceives by defining the 
limits of the object of its thought, and as God is known to us to 
be infinite, it is evident that the human mind can never be capa- 
ble of conceiving God adequately as he is, or of defining his 
being. 

But God is known to us by certain attributes or modes of be- 
ing, the conception of which is possible to us, and which truly 
represent him, as far as they go. We conceive of each of these 
attributes as possessed by God in a degree to which we put no 
limits, and to which we know that no limits can be assigned. In 
degree, therefore, our conception of the attributes of God is in- 
definite, and so can not be defined ; but on the other hand we 
may be truly said to define our idea of God when we furnish a 
comprehensive statement of all the attributes of God that are re- 
vealed to us in Scripture, and in the form in which they are con- 
ceived of by our finite understandings. 

2. Hoiv has God been defined ? 

As the conceptions which different men have formed of God 
are very various, so the forms in which these conceptions have been 
expressed have differed. 

I. The Pantheist calls him to ov, absolute being, and to ndv. 
the all-universal being, for this is the sum of what he knows of 
God. 

II. The Deist calls him the absolute, self-existent, infinite 
Spirit. This is true as far as it goes. 






12 THE BEING OF GOD. 

III. The definition given under the seventh question of the 
Larger Catechism, and the fourth of the Shorter Catechism, is a 
comprehensive statement of the divine perfections as they are re- 
vealed in the holy Scriptures, and as under the light of Scripture 
they are significantly taught by the works of God, creative and 
providential, physical and spiritual. 

3. What is the origin of that idea of God which is found to 
be universally diffused among people of all nations and ages of 
the world ? 

On this subject there are blended together two questions, which 
every human consciousness must in some way answer for itself. 
I. Is there any God ? II. What is God ? The answer to both 
of these questions, including his existence and his attributes, must 
enter into the complex idea which any mind entertains of God. 

Now these conceptions and beliefs concerning the divine ex- 
istence, which in one or another of their various forms are uni- 
versally prevalent among men, originate in several different sources, 
all of which contribute, though in various proportions in different 
cases, to the conceptions which men form of God. These sources 
are — "I. The innate constitution of the human soul. II. The 
speculative reason of man operating reflectively upon the facts of 
consciousness and the phenomena of external nature. III. Tra- 
dition. IV. Supernatural revelation." 

4. In what sense is the idea of God innate, and how far is it 
natural to man? 

It is not innate in the sense either that any man is born with 
a correct idea of God perfectly developed, or that, independently 
of instruction, any man can, in the development of his natural 
powers alone, arrive at a correct knowledge of God. Some very 
debased fragments of the human family have been found who were 
even destitute of any definite idea of God at all. On the other 
hand, independently of all instruction, a sense of dependence and 
of moral accountability is natural to man. These logically in- 
volve the being of a God, and when the intellectual and moral 
character of an individual or race is in any degree developed, these 
invariably suggest the idea and induce the belief of a God. Thus 
man is as universally a religious as he is a rational being. And 



ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD. 13 

whenever the existence and character of God as providential and 
moral ruler is offered as fact, then every human soul responds to 
it as true, seen in its own self-evidencing light, in the absence of 
all formal demonstration. 

5. How far is the idea of God the product of the speculative 
reason ? 

If the phrase speculative reason be used to signify the abstract 
intellect of man, his moral constitution being excluded, acting 
upon its own a priori principles, then we believe that the reason 
can not be said to originate, but only to confirm and complete 
the idea of God furnished by other sources. But if that phrase 
be used to express the intellect as informed by the conscience and 
by the emotional and voluntary nature of man, and acting upon 
the abundant evidences of wise and beneficent design, powerfully 
executed, with which all God's works are filled, then the reason 
thus exercised must lead to certain knowledge that God is, and to 
some knowledge of his natural and moral attributes. 

6. How far is the idea of God traditional ? 

It is impossible for us, who enjoy the light of a divine revela- 
tion, to determine how far the knowledge of God might be spon- 
taneously attained by each generation for itself, and how far the 
actual knowledge possessed by each people is due to a tradition 
from the past. It is on the other hand very plain that the form 
in which the idea is conceived, and the associations with which it 
is accompanied, is determined among every people by the theologi- 
cal traditions they have received from their fathers. It is certain 
also that a tradition of the true God and of his dealings with man 
long lingered among the Gentiles, and even now, though variously 
perverted, enters as an element into the mythologies of heathen 
nations. 

7. How far is the idea of God due to a supernatural revela- 
tion ? 

The natural revelation which God makes of himself to man, in 
the constitution of the human soul, and in the works of creation 
and providence, would unquestionably have been sufficient to lead 
him to the knowledge of God, if man himself had continued in 



14 THE BEING OF GOD. 

his natural moral condition and relations. But since by reason 
of sin man's mind has been darkened, his heart hardened, and his 
relations to God infinitely involved, man never can be able, by 
the mere light of nature, to reach both a certain and an adequate 
knowledge of God. It is certain, both from the reason of the 
case and from universal experience, that a supernatural revelation 
is absolutely necessary, 1st, to make certain by additional evi- 
dences the conclusions of reason ; 2d, to complete and render 
practically adequate the knowledge of God which reason other- 
wise has reached. 

8. What are the two great questions involved in this inquiry 
as to the being of God ? 

I. Is there any conclusive evidence that such a being as God 
exists ? II. What is the nature of God, as far as his attributes 
are manifested by the evidence which proves his existence. This 
second question resolves itself into two others. 1st. What are 
the attributes of God, as ascertained to us by the light of nature 
alone ; 2d. What are his attributes, as ascertained by the light of 
the supernatural revelation given in Scripture. 

9. Can there be any strictly logical demonstration of the being 
of God constructed ? 

The idea which we entertain of God is a complex one, the 
different elements of which are furnished to us by different sources. 
No one single line of demonstrative proof can establish the exist- 
ence of that Infinite Spirit which is known to the Christian as 
Jehovah. Many different arguments, however, concur in converg- 
ing to this inevitable center, each contributing at once confirma- 
tory evidence that God is, and complementary evidence as to what 
God is, and thus concurrently establishing the being of God upon 
immovable foundations. 

The conception of God, as a powerful and righteous person, is 
first given us in our constitutional feeling of dependence and of 
moral accountability. Starting with this conception, we may 
abundantly demonstrate his wisdom, goodness, power, etc., and 
thus reciprocally confirm the evidence for his being from the work 
of his hands in his physical and spiritual creation, in his w r orks 
called natural, as providence, and in his works called supernatural, 



CAN IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 15 

as miracles, prophecies, inspiration, and spiritual regeneration. — 
See Hansel's Limits of Keligious Thought. Lect. IV. 

10. What are the principle arguments by which this great 
truth has been generally defended by orthodox Theists ? 

The six principle arguments used to maintain the being of a 
God are as follows : 

I. The a priori argument which seeks to demonstrate the being 
of a God from certain first principles involved in the essential 
laws of human intelligence. 

11. The cosmological argument, or that one which proceeds 
after the cl posteriori fashion, from the present existence of the 
world as an effect, to the necessary existence of some ultimate and 
eternal first cause. 

III. The teleological argument, or that argument which, from 
the evidences of design in the creation, seeks to establish the fact 
that the great self-existent first cause of all things is an intelli- 
gent and voluntary personal spirit. 

IY. The moral argument, or that argument which, from a 
consideration of the phenomena of conscience in the human heart, 
seeks to establish the fact that the self-existent Creator is also 
the righteous moral governor of the world. This argument in- 
cludes the consideration of the universal feeling of dependence 
common to all men, which together with conscience constitutes 
the religious sentiment. 

V. The historical argument, which involves — (1.) The evident 
providential presence of God in the history of the human race. 
(2.) The evidence afforded by history that the human race is not 
eternal, and therefore not an infinite succession of individuals, but 
created. (3.) The universal consent of all men to the fact of his 
existence. 

VI. The scriptural argument, which includes — (1.) The mira- 
cles and prophecies recorded in Scripture, and confirmed by testi- 
mony, proving the existence of a God. (2.) The Bible itself, self- 
evidently a work of superhuman wisdom. (3.) Revelation, de- 
veloping and enlightening conscience, and relieving many of the 
difficulties under which natural Theism labors, and thus confirm- 
ing every other line of evidence. — Dr. Hodge. 



16 THE BEING OF GOD. 

11. What is the meaning of the phrases a priori and onto- 
logical ? 

The phrase d priori, as contrasted with the phrase a posteri- 
ori, signifies an argument proceeding downward from causes to 
effects, or from general and necessary principles to some particular 
consequence necessarily resulting from them. An a posteriori 
argument, on the other hand, is one proceeding in the contrary 
direction, from effects upward to their cause, or from certain par- 
ticular consequences to the general and necessary principles from 
which they result. 

An ontological argument is one (ontology is compounded of 
two Greek words, meaning the science of real existence, or exist- 
ence in its absolute reality, as distinguished from phenomena or 
things as they appear to us to be relatively to our faculties of 
perception), " which proposes to discover or establish the fact of 
any real existence, either beyond the sphere of the present world, 
or in any other way incapable of being the direct object of con- 
sciousness, which can be deduced immediately from the possession 
of certain feelings or principles and faculties of the human soul." — 
Ancient Philosophy by W. Archer Butler, vol. i., ch. 3, p. 68. 

12. What is the famous d priori argument for the existence 
of God, as set forth by Dr. Samuel Clarice ? 

By far the ablest and most famous argument for the being of 
God ever constructed on d priori principles is that set forth in 
the Boyle lectures of Dr. S. Clarke, delivered in London, a. d. 
1704. Its main points are as follows : 

I. As it is certain that something does exist now, something 
must have existed from all eternity ; since it is contradictory to 
conceive of any thing commencing to exist, except through the 
intervention of some preexisting cause, pp. 9 and 10, 4th Lon- 
don edition, A. d. 1716. 

II. Whatever has existed from eternity must be self-existent, 
or necessarily existent, i. e., must have the ground or reason of its 
existence at all times and in all places alike of an equal necessity 
in itself, p. 15. 

III. The only true idea of a self-existent or necessarily exist- 
ent being is the idea of a being, the supposition of whose not 
existing is an express contradiction, p. 16. 



CAX IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 17 

IV. The material world can not possibly be the first and ori- 
ginal being, uncreated, independent, and of itself eternal ; because 
it involves no contradiction to conceive of the world, as to the 
matter, form, measure, or motion of it, either not to be at all, or 
to be different from what it is, pp. 22, 23. 

V. But since something does now exist, it is a contradiction 
not to conceive of something as necessarily self-existent from eter- 
nity ; and besides infinite space and eternal duration can not be 
thought not to exist without a contradiction. They are therefore 
necessarily self-existent, and therefore also the essence of God, of 
which infinite space and eternal duration are the essential proper- 
ties or attributes, must be self-existent also. For space and time 
are not substances but properties, which necessarily imply a com- 
mensurate substance to which they belong, p. 16. 

He thence proceeds by a similar process to prove that God is 
infinitely wise, free, powerful and good, etc. 

13. What are the objections to this argument ? 

This argument, as employed by Dr. Clarke, is consummately 
able, and if not of itself conclusive, has been of the greatest use in 
confronting the ontological Pantheists on their own ground. The 
recent fashionable objections to all a priori reasoning on this sub- 
ject have been carried too far. I. Because every a priori system 
of proof is partly d posteriori, starting from the experience which 
consciousness affords us of dependent existence. II. Because 
every a posteriori system of proof embraces of necessity an a 
priori element, thus the principles that every effect must have a 
cause, and that design argues intelligence, are a priori judgments. 
The special objections that lie against Dr. Clarke's argument are, 
1, It confounds logical necessity of thought upon the part of man 
with physical necessity of being upon the part of God, making 
the power of man to conceive or not to conceive the measure of 
real existence, and II. It makes space and time, which are to us 
necessary abstract conceptions, and conditions of all thinking prop- 
erties of God. God is omnipresent and eternal, but in any other 
sense it is absurd to regard space and time as properties of which 
he is the substance. They are the conditions of all being, and are 
occupied by all existences in infinitely various proportions and 
relations. 

2 



18 THE BEING OF GOD. 

14. What is the argument of Descartes and others, derived 
from the fact that ice possess the idea of God ? 

Descartes, founding all knowledge upon the truth of human 
consciousness, maintained that in proportion to the clearness of 
an idea is the evidence that it actually represents an objective 
reality. But one of the clearest and most prominent ideas actually 
possessed by man is the idea of one infinitely perfect being. This 
idea could not spring from " any finite source, since the finite and 
imperfect could not give me the idea of the infinite and perfect. 
Hence, if I have an incontestibly clear idea of God, a God must 
necessarily exist/' 

He also argued that the existence of God is implied in the 
nature of the idea we have of him, just as the existence of a 
triangle is implied in the conception which we form of a triangle. 
Self-existence and necessary existence are essential elements of an 
infinitely perfect being. But as we have an idea of an infinitely 
perfect being, including his self-existence, it is a contradiction in 
terms to conceive of him as not existing. Therefore he must 
exist. — See Morell's History of Modern Philosophy, vol. i., p. 172. 

15. What are the objections to that argument 1 

While we must ever regard this and all other & priori argu- 
ments for the existence of God as of value in the way of demon- 
strating the fact, that although the idea of God cannot be strictly 
said to be innate, yet it is complimentary to reason, i. e., when once 
presented, always afterwards felt to be necessary to satisfy the de- 
mands of reason, nevertheless we cannot regard this argument 
as being, when standing alone, a valid demonstration of the ex- 
istence of God. The conceptions of the human mind, whether 
clear or vague, can not be held as the certain measure of real 
objective existence. They can only form the ground of a ra- 
tional probability, and thus enhance the credibility of other argu- 
ments. 

16. On what grounds do the German transcendental philoso- 
phers found their belief in the being of a God ? 

Schleiermacher, and his German and English followers, as 
Coleridge, Morell, and others, place the foundation of this divine 



CAN IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 19 

knowledge in the feeling of absolute and infinite dependence. 
This they claim to be an inseparable element of every man's self- 
consciousness, and they represent this feeling as apprehending 
God immediately as he is in himself, an infinite being, embracing 
and conditioning our dependent being upon every hand. Schell- 
ing, Cousin, and others maintain that human reason, in its high- 
est exercise, is capable of an immediate intuition of the infinite, 
and thus God is directly seen in his all-perfect being, by the 
appropriate organ of such an infinite knowledge in the human 
soul. 

Both of these pretended ways of the immediate and adequate 
apprehension of the infinite are disproved by the self-evident 
principle that the mind in every thought contains the conception 
which it forms of its object, but a finite mind cannot contain an 
infinite thought. We may know that God is infinite, but we 
can form only a finite conception of him. -Every form of human 
consciousness, whether of thought or of feeling, is finite, and de- 
pends upon conditions, but the infinite has no limits or condi- 
tions. We believe God to be infinite, but we positively conceive 
of him only as indefinitely great, that is, of a degree of greatness 
from which we remove one by one the limitations which inhere in 
all human thinking. — See Mansel's Limits of Eeligious Thought, 
pp. 101, 122, 124, and Sir William Hamilton's Discussions, pp. 
29, 30. 

17. What is the Cosmological argument, or that argument 
which deduces the necessary existence of a First Self-existent 
Cause from the fact that the ivorld certainly exists, and is evi- 
dently an effect ? 

Whatever exists must have a cause, either without or within 
itself. It must either have at some time been brought into ex- 
istence by some preexistent cause, or it must have the necessary 
cause of its own existence in itself. If it have the necessary cause 
of its own existence in itself, it must be eternal, for the same 
necessary cause must have operated equally at all times, and if 
there ever was a time when it was not, it never could have 
caused itself to be. 

Thus far even the Atheist, Pantheist, Materialist, and Idealist 
all agree with us. They maintain, however, under different forms, 



20 THE BEING OF GOD. 

the view that the world itself is eternal. We maintain that the 
world is not self-existent, but an effect created by a God. 

18. What is a cause, and whence do ive derive our conviction 
that every effect must have a cause ? 

A spiritual cause is a spirit originating its own acts and pro- 
ducing its effect out of its own energy. An effect is some new 
thing or change produced by the power or efficiency residing in 
the cause. 

" A material cause consists always in two or more material 
substances with their active properties sustaining a certain rela- 
tion to one another in a certain state, and the effect is the same 
substances in another state. Thus, when a hammer is made to 
strike a stone and break it, the cause consists of the hammer and 
stone in one state and relation, and the effect the hammer and 
stone in the state they are after the blow." — McCosh, Divine 
Government, p. 100. 

The conviction that every effect must have a cause is an origi- 
nal and essential law of our intelligence, which, instead of being 
deduced as a consequence from experience, is involved in those 
elementary processes of thought upon which all experience de- 
pends. The judgment is not simply, that every change which 
we have ever seen did have a cause, but that every change of 
every kind, past, present, and future, must have a cause, and 
further, a cause adequate to produce the effect. 

19. Hoiv can it be proved that the world is an effect ? 

The entire world, in all of its departments, as far as it is cog- 
nizable by our senses, consists of the results of past changes and 
of present changes, proceeding in continual succession. Now 
either one of these three things must be true : 

I. Either there must be supposed one or more eternal, self- 
existent beings, which have the cause of their existence necessarily 
in themselves, and which cause all the succession of dependent 
changes which we see proceeding around us. 

Or, II. All these dependent changes which we see passing 
around us are only the necessary modifications of the one univer- 
sal, necessary, self-existent substance. This is the Pantheistic 
theory, and is disproved below, under question 35. 



THE WOKLD AN EFFECT. 21 

Or, III. The endless succession of changes which make up the 
phenomenal world must have gone on from all eternity without 
beginning or cause. This is self-evidently absurd. Every change 
is an effect, and every effect must have a cause ; but an infinite 
chain of changes, each being in turn first effect and then cause, 
is impossible, because an infinite chain of effects demand an 
adequate cause, even more imperatively than a single effect. Thus 
the son, though begotten, is not caused by the father. 1st. Be- 
cause the father does not contrive the son, nor understand the 
process of his production ; and 2d, because the father is himself 
caused, and a thousand generations of men demand a cause a 
thousand times more imperatively than one. 

This dream of an eternal succession is also annihilated by the 
testimony of human history and the science of geology, (see be- 
low, questions 20-22), and by the result of universal experience. 
1st. That contrivance necessarily implies intelligence ; and 2d. 
That intelligence is always the cause, never the result of organ- 
ization. 

20. What is the historical argument against the eternity of 
the world ? 

If the world be eternal, the human race must have existed for 
ever, and have descended to the present through an eternal suc- 
cession of generations. Otherwise, if although the world be eter- 
nal, the human race began to exist in time, we would still be 
forced to believe in a God who created the human race. But 
every branch of human history, sacred and profane (and admitt- 
ing, for argument's sake, that the books of Moses are merely hu- 
man productions, they are still as trustworthy history as any 
other), the mythologies, traditions, records of all races and na- 
tions, concur with comparative philology, or the science of the 
origin and relations of human languages, and with ethnology, or 
the science of the origin and distribution of races of men, in con- 
verging to some more or less remote point in the past as the start- 
ing point of the human family. Also other arguments, " such as 
the recency of science ; the vast capacity of the species for general 
or collective improvement, contrasted with the little progress which 
they have yet made ; the expansive force of population, and yet its 
shortness still from the territory and resources of the globe ;" 



22 THE BEING OF GOD. 

all alike prove that the human race began to be at a compara- 
tively recent period, — See Chalmer's N. Theology, vol. i., book 
1, chapter 5. 

21. What is the geological argument against the eternity of 
the world ? 

Geology has clearly established the fact that the earth has ex- 
isted many myriads of years, and passed through many successive 
physical revolutions. In the progress of these successive revolu- 
tions different races of plants and animals were successively brought 
into existence, as the physical conditions of the earth suited their 
respective habits. Thus, in order, the most elementary vegetable 
forms preceded the animal, and of these last the fish, the reptile, 
the bird, the mammiferous quadruped, and, last of all, man ap- 
peared in succession. The geologic record proves that in many 
sudden catas trophies whole races of plants' and animals were de- 
stroyed, and then new and distinct species^ntroduced. 

In connection with these two facts all naturalists maintain 
these two principles, 1st, that there is no such thing as the de- 
velopment of one species or family of plants or animals into an- 
other ; and 2d, that there is no such thing as the spontaneous 
generation of new species. Consequently geology demonstrates 
not only one, but many successive acts of absolute creation. " The 
infidel/' says Hugh Miller (Footprints of the Creator, p. 301), 
" who in this late age of the world attempts falling back upon 
the fiction of an infinite succession would be laughed to scorn." 

22. What ivas the famous development theory as set forth by 
the author of the " Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" 
and how may it be disproved ? 

The great astronomer La Place originated the philosophical 
suggestion which has always since been known as the Nebular 
Hypothesis. He supposed that the stellar universe originated 
from an indefinitely rarified, and intensely hot nebulous matter, 
agitated by a uniform gyratory motion, and that from this origin 
the whole universe has gradually been evolved, through the cal- 
culable operation of the known laws of matter. This is cosmical 
development, or the development of worlds. La Place treated 
this theory chiefly in relation to astronomy, and claimed as its 



DEVELOPMENT THEORY. 23 

most prominent practical confirmation the existence of large ne- 
bulous masses in the remote abysses of space, which the telescope 
could not resolve into stars, and which were, as he insisted, ne- 
bulae in the process of world development. 

The anonymous author of the Vestiges of Creation, whose 
work has excited such general attention, has carried out this 
theory of development into its furthest consequences and most 
detailed applications, to the successive origination of new species 
of plants and animals, and to all the contemporaneous geologic 
changes of the earth ; thus leading into the question of organic 
development. He maintains " that the simplest and most primi- 
tive type gave birth to a type superior to it in compositeness of 
organization and endowment of faculties, and this again to the 
next higher, and so on to the highest." Every organic existence 
being developed by successive stages, the higher from the lower, 
and all at last from an original " fire mist/' by an inherent law 
of progression. 

This theory does not necessarily lead to theoretical atheism, 
since the creation of so wonderfully pregnant a " fire mist" would 
as much require an original intelligent cause as the immediate 
creation of the world in the Bible sense. It leads, however, to 
practical atheism, since it denies all providential intervention, and 
it sets forth man as developed through the tadpole, by virtue of 
the ultimate mechanical and chemical properties inherent in mat- 
ter, instead of being created in the image of God. 

We have to say, I. With reference to La Place's Nebular 
Hypothesis, or theory of cosmical development, that it is now 
generally held by Christian philosophers and astronomers as a 
highly probable speculation, agreeing with and interpreting all 
known facts. They agree, however, also in maintaining it only 
as an approximate account of the successive stages in which the 
infinite Creator, having previously created all things out of nothing 
by the word of his power, brought his work in the exercise of 
his ceaseless providential agency to its present condition. They 
maintain these two principles, (1.) That as far as it is known, 
without exception, God always perfects his works from an ele- 
mentary commencement, by a regular method, and through suc- 
cessions of time. That is, he works by fixed law. And for this 
there appears this wise and beneficent reason, that if God should 



24 THE BEING OF GOD. 

exercise his infinite power any otherwise, his working would be 
perfectly inscrutable to his intelligent creatures, and therefore to 
them a revelation of his power merely, and not of his wisdom. 
(2.) That law is never a cause, but only the method according to 
which a cause acts. It is infinitely absurd therefore to offer the 
Nebular Hypothesis as a rational account of the way in which the 
universe might have come into its present condition without either 
an infinitely intelligent and powerful creating cause or an infin- 
itely intelligent and powerful providential upholder and director. 
II. With respect to the further application of this theory to 
the explanation of the origination of the simplest organic beings 
from inorganic material elements in the first place, and then the 
gradual development through successive stages of organic races, 
the higher from the lower in virtue of the inherent self-acting 
principles of nature, we have to say, (1.) As this view is held by 
the author of the " Vestiges," and generally by Deistical specula- 
tors, it rests wholly upon an absurd idea of "law." Law is only 
the method according to which a cause acts. The law itself, as 
well as its effects, must be referred to the cause which observes it. 
The more general and comprehensive the law, the more powerful 
and intelligent must be the cause. (2.) All the leading natural- 
ists, geologists and physiologists repudiate this theory upon scien- 
tific grounds, e. g., L. Agassiz, Dr. Carpenter, Mr. A. Pritchard, 
Hugh Miller, Dr. Hitchcock. (3.) Its pretended experimentum 
crucis, the generation under a galvanic current of small insects 
without a parent germ, is discredited as a mistake by the highest 
scientific authorities. (4.) Hugh Miller, in his " Footprints of 
the Creator," has annihilated this fiction. He proves, a, That 
one species • never developes into another, b, That there is no 
such thing as spontaneous generation ; that every living thing 
comes from a parent, c, That geology presents, on the contrary, 
instances of the degradation of certain races, i. e., a retrograde 
movement in creation perfectly inconsistent with the Theory of 
Development. (5.) This theory developes mind from matter, 
which is absurd, see below, Question 32. (6.) The most recent 
and highest tendencies of scientific speculation indicate the con- 
clusion that while all living organisms are formed of matter and 
are built up by material for ces, yet that the vital principle which 
directs those forces is wholly immaterial, not subject to the known 



ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN. 25 

laws of matter, and therefore the organism which that vital prin- 
ciple erects can not be developed by those laws. 

23. What is the Teleological argument, or that which estab- 
lishes the existence of God from the existence of design in his 
works ? 

We have already proved that the world must have had a 
cause, a cause distinct from and exterior to itself, since eternal 
succession and successive development have both been proved to 
be absurd. In order to prove that this cause is a God, we have 
further to show that this eternal self-existent cause is an intelli- 
gent free agent, and a righteous moral governor. 

Design, or the wise and skillful adaptation of means to a cer- 
tain end according to an evident purpose, always infallibly proves 
two things with regard to the cause, 1st. That it is endowed with 
intelligence as well as power. 2d. That it is endowed with free 
will, exercised in purpose, selection, direction, etc. In other 
words, that the cause is a person, or a plurality of persons. 

Now, G-ocVs universe in all its parts is full of design, as is evi- 
dent in the balanced forces acting on such a vast scale in astron- 
omy, in the laws of terrestrial nature, so wonderfully correlated to 
each other, and to the wider laws of the universe beyond. It is 
preeminently manifested in the wonderful organizations of plants 
and animals, and above all, of man, and the adaptation of each 
to his peculiar circumstances and purposes of life. It is mani- 
fested also in the constitution of the human soul, which is a 
created effect, the relation of the soul to the body, the adaptation 
of the world to the moral constitution of man, and the mutual 
relations of intellect, will, emotion, and conscience in man. It is 
manifested also in the constitution of man as a social being, in 
the organization of all communities, conjugal, family, and na- 
tional, and in the universal history of the race, etc., etc. For the 
illustration of this great argument, see Paley on design in organ- 
ized life, Chalmers and Brougham on design as exhibited in the 
mental and moral constitution of man, and Hugh Miller on de- 
sign as exhibited in the successive creations during the geologic 
eras. — See Ps. xix., 1, and Bom. i., 20. 

24. How do ive derive the conviction that design universally 
implies intelligence ? 



26 THE BEING OF GOD. 

This principle necessarily resolves itself into the more ele- 
mentary one above stated, viz., that every effect must have a 
cause. Every work evidencing design is an effect. The real 
nature of every effect proves as incontestibly, by force of the essen- 
tial laws of reason, the nature of the cause from which it springs, 
as the mere fact of the effect proves the mere fact of the cause. 
A great effect proves a powerful cause. An intelligible effect 
proves an intelligent cause. A design not understood may to us 
prove nothing with regard to the cause from which it springs ; 
but the instant we do understand it, that instant we must at- 
tribute to it intelligence and purpose in addition to efficiency. 

Here we are necessarily brought to the decision of the great 
question presented by the Materialists. They hold that there is 
but one substance in the universe to which the phenomena of 
mind and matter are alike to be referred, because intelligence is 
only one of several special results of material organization. 

Now, all we know of power, of intelligence, of free choice, of 
feeling, we derive from consciousness. But consciousness presents 
these as always the ultimate, never the derived or constituted, 
attributes of ourselves. And, moreover, as far as our experience 
ever reaches, free intelligence is always the cause of organization, 
and never organization or material aggregation the cause of intel- 
ligence. The reason of the case, therefore, and the analogy of an 
unexceptive experience, absolutely uniform and universal, con- 
strain us to refer all intelligible design to intelligence, and never 
intelligence to organization, or any kind of material evolution. — 
See Sir William Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, Lecture 2. 

25. What are the principal objections urged against this argu- 
ment from design, and hoiv may they be answered ? 

I. Hume, (see Essays, vol. i., p. 157,) as quoted by Chalmers, 
says that the sole rational source of our conviction that design 
implies intelligence is our experience in time past that such and 
such designs were produced by an intelligent cause. If we see a 
house, a watch, or a ship, we certainly know that they were formed 
by skillful men, because we have anterior experience of the pro- 
duction of precisely such effects by such causes. But the world, 
he maintains, is altogether a "peculiar effect;" and since we have 
no experience whatever of world-making, so we have no reason to 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 27 

conclude that the apparent contrivances of nature are the product 
of intelligence. 

To this we answer : 1st. That design and intelligence are 
correlative terms, it is impossible for a sane rumd to separate them. 
An intelligible design, wherever seen, must suggest intelligence. 
2d. All our experience leads to the same result, viz., not merely 
that some instances of design have been produced by intelligence, 
but that all design is always and only so produced. 3d. The 
science of geology does bring an instance of world-making within 
the circle of our investigations, and we do practically find, as we 
were assured upon a priori principles we would, that the same 
laws of cause and effect, of intelligence and design, prevail in 
world-making that prevail in every human art. 

II. It is objected that we arbitrarily stop short with this argu- 
ment without leading it to its legitimate conclusion ; for if the 
world must have a cause, so much more must God ; and if the 
world must have a designer, so much more must God. 

We answer : 1st. An infinite series of dependent causes is re- 
jected as absurd by reason and disproved as false by science, there- 
fore the eternal must be self-existent and uncaused. To this 
conclusion science leads, and in it reason rests, although the nature 
of self-existence can never be comprehended by a finite mind. 
2d. The world and human souls being effects, or something new 
produced by causes, present indubitable traces of design; but God, 
being self-existent, presents no evidence of design. Self-existent 
intelligence no more suggests the idea of design than self-existent 
chaos. 

III. M. Aug. Comte, the great apostle of the Positive Phil- 
osophy, maintains that human reason has to deal with phenomena 
and their order, or laws of succession solely, and that we have 
nothing to do with either causes or design. He says that the 
adaptations of elements and organs in nature are nothing more 
than " conditions of existence." If these were absent there would 
be no existence, and they are present only because they are neces- 
sary to the existence in question. Where the circumstances 
proper to the life of fish exist there fish are found. " Only those 
stars are inhabited which are inhabitable." 

To this we answer : 1st. The human mind always has, and 
of rational necessity must discuss causes. Laws account for no- 



28 THE BEING OF GOD. 

thing, they merely discover how causes act. 2d. Happily con- 
trived " conditions of existence" are the very marks of design for 
which we argue, but of necessity there must be a designing cause. 
A lake is the place for a fish to live in, but no fish will live there 
until he is made or put there. A star might be habitable for 
ever without being inhabited. 3d. A large part of the design 
with which God's works are full are not bare conditions of exist- 
ence, but conditions of beautiful, happy, useful existence. Thus 
the symmetry of the human frame, and the relation of the eye 
and taste to beauty, are not mere conditions of existence, but the 
work of a God, whose thoughts are beautiful, wise, and benevo- 
lent, as well as effective. 

IV. It is objected by many that the argument from existing 
dependent creatures to a first cause, and from design in the world 
to an intelligent designer, although valid as far as it goes, could 
not possibly lead us to the knowledge of an infinite God. The 
universe is only finite. The highest conclusion, therefore, that 
we ought to form from the premises is, that a great though finite 
being exists adequate to produce the actual effect. 

To this we answer : We not only admit but insist upon the 
fact, that all the modes of human consciousness, feeling, as well 
as thought, being finite, we can never positively embrace in our 
minds the idea of an infinite being. This arises from the essential 
limitations of our own minds. We must believe in the existence 
of the infinite, though our highest positive conception of God is 
that of a being indefinitely great, i. e., we set no limits to our 
view of any of his attributes in any direction. Precisely to this 
result does the argument from design lead us. We believe that 
the world is finite only from rational necessity, not as the result 
of experience. To us it is indefinitely great. The microscope and 
the telescope have alike failed to see through creation ; on either 
hand it reaches indefinitely beyond our faculties of perception. 
Science of the infinite and absolute is impossible, but faith in 
them is necessary to reason. We can not think of time or space 
without believing in eternity and immensity. We can not think 
of dependent causes without thinking of one cause from which 
all the rest spring. We can not think of finite and dependent 
being without thinking of independent and absolute being. — See 
Morell's History of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, App., p. 645, and 



MORAL ARGUMENT. 29 

Introduction, pp. 57-60. " We can not think the divine attri- 
butes as in themselves they are, we can not think God without 
impiety, unless we also implicitly confess our impotence to think 
him worthily ; and if we should assert that God is as we think, or 
can affirm him to be, we actually blaspheme. For the Deity is 
adequately inconceivable, is adequately ineffable, since human 
thought and human language are equally incompetent to his in- 
finities/' — Sir William Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, Ap- 
pendix, p. 692; and see also Mansel's Limits of Religious Thought, 
Lecture 3, Note 11 on that Lecture. 

26. What argument for the being of a God may be derived 
from the Sense of Dependence which is common to all men ? 

The religious instinct, which is one of the most universal and 
indestructible attributes of human nature, is constituted of two 
elements : 1st. an intimate and inseparable sense of dependence 
which always accompanies our self-consciousness ; and 2d, con- 
science, including a sense of moral accountability. " With the 
first development of consciousness there grows up, as part of it, 
the innate feeling that our life, natural and spiritual, is not in our 
own power to sustain or prolong ; that there is One above us on 
whom we are dependent, whose existence we learn and whose 
presence we realize by the same instinct of prayer." — Mansel's 
Limits of Religious Thought, p. 120. This sense of dependence 
has often, in the absence of knowledge, been prostituted to vari- 
ous superstitions, but its universal presence, under all forms of 
faith, proves the being of a God. 

27. State the argument for the existence of God derived from 
Conscience. 

Conscience is a universal and indestructible j>rinciple of human 
nature. It asserts, even when it is unable to enforce, its supreme 
authority, as the organ of an ultimate law, over all the active 
powers of the soul. Now, if there be no God, universal conscience 
must be a lie, since its right to command over inclination and 
passion can be derived only from a superior authority, whose 
right it is to reign. Conscience essentially involves a sense of 
moral accountability, and in the case of the transgressor a fearful 



30 THE BEING OF GOD. 

looking for of judgment. Hence the universal prevalence among 
men of expiatory sacrifices and penances. — Mansel, p. 122. 

These two, a sense of dependence and of moral accountability, 
constituting the religious instinct universally prevalent among 
men, and proving that God must he a person, endowed with intel- 
ligence and sovereign and righteous will, give us our first conception 
of God, which is afterwards corroborated and enlarged by the study 
of his works and of his word. As these are the primary sources 
of our faith in God, so they exert immeasurably the most preva- 
lent influence in maintaining and enforcing that faith among men. 

28. What is the Historical argument for the being of a God ? 

Several arguments for the being of a God may be derived from 
history. 

I. Men of all nations, in all ages of the world, differing 
among themselves in all respects susceptible of change, have pro- 
fessed and acted upon this belief. Man is as essentially a religious 
as he is a rational animal. Either the nature of man is a lie, or 
there is a God. Cicero says, " What nation is there, or what race 
of men which has not, without any previous instruction, some 
idea of the gods ? Now, that in which all men agree must neces- 
sarily be true." 

II. The student of universal history will find evident traces of 
design running through and giving significance to the relative bear- 
ing of all events. God is as plainly in history as he is in creation. 

III. History, as shown above (question 20), proves that the 
human race is of recent origin, and therefore has been created. 

IY. Godliness has always worked beneficially for human na- 
ture, having, practically, " the promise of the life that now is." 
Every experiment of national Atheism has been morally, socially, 
and politically disastrous. 

29. What is the argument for the being of a God derived from 
the phenomena of Scripture ? 

The only way in which the existence of God can be known to 
us at all is by some revelation of himself. Nature and providence 
are as much revelations of God as Scripture ; and inspired Scrip- 
ture, miracles, and prophecy are as much his works, and more 
clearly manifest power, intelligence, goodness, and righteousness, 



SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE. 31 

than does either nature or providence. All the evidences of Christi- 
anity, which are spread out in the third chapter of this volume, 
which prove that, if there be a God Christianity is a revelation 
from him, also just as legitimately prove that there is a God, 
since these are divine works. We are under the same necessity 
of accounting rationally for the phenomena of Scripture that we are 
of accounting for the phenomena of creation. Thus, 1st, miracles 
and prophecy are undoubted facts established by testimony. But 
miracles and prophecy are inconceivable except as acts of a God. 
2d, The Scriptures themselves are evidently the work of a super- 
human intelligence. — See chapter 3d, questions 13 and 14. 3d. 
The feeble and crude notion of God furnished by natural religion, 
is by revelation taken up, completed, glorified, and justified to 
the reason and conscience. 4th. The spiritual power of Christi- 
anity as an experimental system in the individual and in all com- 
munities, in proving its suitableness to the highest wants of hu- 
man nature, proves also the being of a God. 

30. State summarily the amount of knowledge concerning God 
we derive from the foregoing sources. 

I. Our constitutional sense of dependence and of moral ac- 
countability give us spontaneously our primary elemental notion 
of God, and assurance of his existence. 

II. Reasoning upon all existences and events known to us 
upon the two principles, (1,) that every effect must have a cause ; 
(2,) that the power, intelligence and benevolence exercised by the 
cause in any special act of causation may be argued from their 
traces in the effect. We find, a, that God is the eternal, self- 
existent, first cause, and b, that he is indefinitely powerful, wise, 
free of will and benevolent. 

III. Reflecting upon the nature of intelligence and free, will, 
and their relation to organization as always its cause, never its 
effect, as developed in our own experience, we rise by necessary 
inference to the conclusion that God, as a free intelligence, must 
be a personal spirit. 

IV. Reflecting upon the phenomena of conscience, and upon 
the constitution of our emotional nature and the general course 
of providence in relation to the law of conscience, we are neces- 
sarily led to the conclusion that God is also a moral governor, 



32 THE BEING OF GOD. 

who speaks through conscience and who will vindicate its sanc- 
tions, because he himself is a holy and righteous being. 

Y. From the profound constitution of our nature, although 
we are utterly incapable of forming any commensurate conception 
of the infinite and absolute, yet we must, as all men do, affirm 
their existence, and that they meet in the self-existent and in- 
comprehensible God. 

This much we may now, under the noonday light of revela- 
tion, certainly deduce from the phenomena of nature as to the 
being and attributes of God ; but before the light of revelation 
no man was able to see thus much, nor to affirm with confidence 
even what he did see. 

VI. From the diligent and rational study of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, with the illumination of the Holy Ghost, we shall attain 
to a complete theology, as far as that is possible to man on earth. 

31. What is Atheism, and how far is it possible ? 

Atheism is the denial of God. Of Atheists there are three 
classes. 1st. Those who confessedly deny the being of any God ; 
such as those who believe in an eternal succession of things as 
they are, or in a successive development of nature in virtue of 
inherent mechanical laws, e. g., Comte, etc. 2d. Those who, while 
admitting God nominally deny any of his essential constituent 
attributes. In this sense the Pantheist, who denies the person- 
ality of God, and who confounds him with the universe, is really, 
though not nominally, an Atheist, since it makes little difference 
whether we say that the world is God, or that God is the world. 
3d. To the same end tends practically, and by logical though not by 
confessed consequence, all materialism, which makes intelligence 
the result not the cause of physical organization, and of all natur- 
alism, which, while verbally admitting a distant God in the first 
inconceivably remote act of creation, denies him altogether in all 
providence and supernatural revelation. 

Atheism is possible. 1st. Practically ; many men live thus 
without God in the world. 2d. Although, from the indestruc- 
tible constitution of human nature, men must believe in and feel 
dependence upon some first self-existent being, and fear the judg- 
ment of some righteous ruler, yet through ignorance and want of 
intellectual development, and through the delusive power of so- 



MATERIALISM. 33 

phistical speculation, many men honestly reject as untrue one or 
more of the essential constituent attributes of God, so that the 
gross superstition, or the barren notion left in their minds is not 
God. Not loving God, they for a time succeed in eliminating, as 
a matter of thought, his distasteful presence. — Kom. i., 21-26. 

32. What is Materialism ? 

As soon as we begin to reflect we become conscious of the 
presence of two everywhere interlaced, but always distinct classes 
of phenomena — of thought, feeling, will on the one hand, and of 
extension, inertia, etc., on the other. Analyze these as we may, 
we never can resolve the one into the other. The one class we 
come to know through consciousness, the other through sensation, 
and we know the one as directly and as certainly as the other ; and 
as we can never resolve either into the other, we refer the one class 
to a substance called spirit, and the other class to a substance 
called matter. 

Materialists are a set of superficial philosophers, with whom 
the phenomena of feeling, conscience and will are not intense, and 
who have formed the habit of looking too exclusively outward upon 
the world present to the senses. Hence they fall into ' the funda- 
mental error of affirming, 1st. That there is but one substance in 
the universe, and 2d. That intelligence, feeling, conscience,' voli- 
tion, etc., are only properties of matter under certain modifica- 
tions. Intelligence did not create and organize matter, but matter, 
organizing according to its inherent laws, evolved intelligence. 

To this we answer, 1st. This is no recondite dispute, as some 
Materialists pretend, concerning substance. The Materialist 
knows that by affirming conscience to be only a modification of 
matter he destroys its essential nature — because if it be material 
it is mechanical and not moral. His object doubtless is to reason 
away the phenomena of conscience and liberty. 2d. The theory 
is one-sided. Our knowledge of thought and feeling, conscience 
and will, is at least as immediate and certain as our knowledge of 
matter. Neither should be sacrificed to the other. 3d. It is un- 
warrantable dogmatism arbitrarily to refer the two classes of phe- 
nomena to the same ground, while we are utterly unable logically 
to resolve one class into the other. 4th. This theory is inconsist- 
ent with consciousness and experience, the solid grounds of all 



34 THE BEING OF GOD. 

our knowledge on this subject. (1.) While the senses are several, 
and the bodily organization constantly changing, yet in every 
complex experience, and through all time, the central I, which 
thinks and feels, is an absolute unit. (2.) Matter is seen to be in- 
capable of originating action — the central I has the power of ab- 
solute causation. (3.) As far as we ever see organization is always 
the result, never the cause of intelligence. 

33. What is Idealism ? 

As the Materialist holds that the sensible is the only real, and 
that mind is a modification of matter, so the extreme Idealist 
holds that the sensitive and cognitive mind is the only real, and 
that the phenomena of the material world are only modifica- 
tions of mind. When a man sees or feels a material object, the 
thought or feeling of which he is conscious is within the mind 
itself. The Idealist argues consequently that all the man really 
knows is the thought or feeling of which he is conscious, and that 
he can never be rationally certain whether there is any outward 
reality corresponding to that inward state or not. 

In the most extreme form this tendency leaves the individual 
philosopher a solitary dreamer in the midst of the world. He can 
know, nothing outside of himself and the successions of his own 
thoughts. This is the subjective Idealism of Fichte. 

In a lower degree this tendency leads to an Idealistic Pan- 
theism, when all the phenomena of the universe, internal and 
external, is referred to the modifications of one infinite spirit, 
which is God. Such is the Pantheism of Schelling and Hegel. 

But the phrase, Idealism, is also applied, in a modified sense, 
to those systems of philosophy which, while admitting the exist- 
ence both of matter and mind, yet build themselves ultimately 
upon the unresolvable first principles of man's internal self-con- 
sciousness. 

34. What is Hylozoism ? r 

Hylozoism, compounded of two Greek words, v\r\ wood, $wf\ 
life — riving, animated matter, designates a theory attributed to 
Strato of Lampsacus, who, confounding life and intellect with 
force and motion, regarded the universe as a vast animal self-de- 
veloping through the plastic power of its own inherent life, *. e., 



PANTHEISM. 35 

unconsciously self-developing from eternity. — Bitter, Hist. An. 
Phil. 3 book 9, chap. 6. 

35. What is Pantheism ? 

Pantheism, as the etymology of the term indicates, signifies 
that system which maintains that all phenomena of every class 
known to man, whether spiritual or material, are to be referred 
to but one substance, and that the universal substance of God ; 
and thus, matter and mind being declared to be only different 
modifications of one substance, Pantheism, from different points 
of view, assumes sometimes a materialistic and at others an ideal- 
istic complexion. The Atheist says that there is no God, the Pan- 
theist that every thing is God. The Materialist says that all the 
phenomena of the universe are to be referred to one substance, 
which is matter. The Pantheist says that they are all to be re- 
" ferrecl to one substance, and that the absolute substance of God. 
Yet the Pantheist differs from the Atheist and Materialist more in 
the color and tone than in the essence of his creed. The Pan- 
theist's God is not a self-conscious, voluntary person, separate from 
his creation, but he is that infinite, original, self-existent, uni- 
versal, unconscious, impersonal essence to which all proper attri- 
butes belong, intelligence as well as the attraction of gravitation, 
whose infinitely various and ceaseless modifications of substance, 
by a necessary law of eternal self-development, constitute all 
things as they succeed each other in the universe of existence. 
God is neither sun nor star, ocean nor mountain, wind nor rain, 
man nor beast, but these are all fleeting modifications of God. 
God is ever eternally the same himself, but he is eternally, and by 
a necessary movement running through these endless cycles of 
self-modification, coming to self-consciousness only transiently 
in individual men, as they are born and die — and in the highest 
sense of all coming to himself in the greatest men, those heroes in 
whom all lesser men see and worship God. 

This general system, modified endlessly as to special characteris- 
tics, has prevailed from the dawn of speculation as the necessary goal 
of those proud intellects which maintain their capacity to appre- 
hend directly, and to philosphize worthily, upon the essential mys- 
teries of infinite and absolute being. It was for ages before Christ 
the dream of the Hindoo theosophist, and of the Grecian Eleatic 
philosopher. In modern times, from the days of Spinoza to the pre- 



36 THE BEING OF GOD. 

sent, it has been taught, among others, by Schelling, Hegel, Cousin, 
Carlyle, and Ealph Waldo Emerson. Among the ancient Greeks, 
and to the present day among the Hindoos, the popular accompani- 
ment of this abstruse and atheistical speculation has been Polythe- 
ism. The Pantheistic philosopher, by a sweeping generalization, 
referred all the powers of universal nature to one subject, the All. 
Their uneducated co temporaries, unable to reach so wide a general- 
ization, recognized a separate God in every energy of nature, and thus 
worshipped Gods and Lords many. In modern times, on the other 
hand, Polytheism having been for ever made impossible by Chistian- 
ity, the popular accompaniment of Pantheism in Germany, France, 
England, and America is the worship of man — sometimes hero- 
worship, or the worship of great heroic men — sometimes of mankind 
in the mass, as the highest form into which the deity is ever devel- 
oped, the clearest manifestation of God. This heresy is disproved — 

1st. By the whole truth of human consciousness. If con- 
sciousness teaches us anything clearly it is that we ourselves are 
distinct individual persons. Pantheism teaches that we are only 
" parts or particles of God," springing from him and returning to 
him, yet always part of him, as the waves are part of the sea. 

2d. By the truth of all the judgments of conscience with re- 
gard, first, to sin; second, to moral responsibility. Pantheism, by 
making every thing alike a necessary self-development of God, 
makes sin impossible, destroys all distinction between good and 
evil, and by denying the personality of God, and by making the 
fleeting personality of man an illusion of his own consciousness, 
it of course makes moral responsibility a myth. 

3d. By the whole argument from Design, (see above, question 
23,) Design proves intelligence and free will, self-conscious pur- 
pose, and therefore personality. 

4th. Pantheism, by referring the phenomena of mind and of 
matter to one substance, must oscillate between the absurdities of 
Materialism and of Idealism. There is a choice of follies, but no 
middle ground. 

5th. By the whole system of historical testimonies and ex- 
perimental evidences that establishes the truth of Christianity. 

6th. By the uniformly degrading influence which this system 
has always exercised upon the morals of every community that 
has drunk deeply of its spirit. 



CHAPTER II. 

THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 

1. How may religion be defined ? 

1. In the abstract, religion signifies the relation which man as 
an intellectual and spiritual being sustains to God. 

II. In the concrete, religion signifies (1.) subjectively, that 
inward spiritual state and experience which justly corresponds to 
the reality of our relations to God ; thus a religious man is one 
who has an inward religious experience ; (2.) objectively, those 
doctrines, institutions, and practical observances whereby these 
relations of God to man, and of man to God are revealed and pro- 
mulgated, and the duties corresponding to those relations are 
practiced. In this sense the Mahomedan is a false, and the Chris- 
tian a true religion. — Dr. Hodge. 

2. What is theology, and how is it to be distinguished from 
religion ? 

The English word theology is derived from the two Greek 
words, Oeog, Xoyoq, signifying discourse concerning God, then that 
science which systematically comprehends all that is known to 
man concerning God, and our relations to him. The terms the- 
ology and religion are contrasted thus : 

Eeligion is practical and experimental. Theology is scientific. 
Every religious man is a theologian just so far as his knowledge 
is accurate and comprehensive. Every true theologian must be a 
religious man as far as his knowledge is experimental. The more 
accurate and comprehensively systematic our religious knowledge, 
the more is it a theology ; and the more real and practical our 
knowledge of God becomes, the more is our theology a religion. 

Theology is to religion what physical science is to the practi- 
cal arts. It is not essential, though it would be an evident ad- 
vantage, if every artizan were a chemist, and every navigator an 



38 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 

astronomer. Yet without science all art would be unintelligent 
and limited. Theology defines religion, and sets it upon a more 
certain ground. It purifies it from foreign alloy, and defends it 
from all hostile attacks. By making it more intelligent, it makes 
it more worthy of God, and more effective for the salvation of 
man. — Gaussen. 

3. What is the distinction between natural and revealed the- 
ology ? 

Natural theology is that science which proposes to itself the 
solution of these two great questions, 1st, Does God exist ? and 
2d, What may be legitimately ascertained concerning the true 
nature of God in himself, and concerning his relations to man, 
from the principles of human reason and conscience, or from the 
evidences of God's works, either in creation or providence. A 
distinction here must be carefully observed between that knowl- 
edge of God to which the human reason was able to attain by 
means of its own unassisted powers independently of revelation, 
e. g., the theology of Plato and Cicero, and that knowledge of 
God which the human mind is now competent to deduce from the 
phenomena of nature under the clear light of a supernatural reve- 
lation, e. g., the theology of the modern rationalistic philosophers. 
Natural theology, as reached by unassisted reason, was fragmen- 
tary, inconsistent and uncertain. Natural theology, as appropri- 
ated and vindicated by reason under the clear light of revelation, 
is itself a strong witness to the truth and supernatural origin of 
that revelation. 

Kevealed theology, on the other hand, is that science which 
treats systematically, 1st, of the evidences authenticating the 
Christian revelation as from God ; 2d, of the interpretation of 
the records which transmit that revelation to us ; and 3d, of all 
the information furnished by those records of God and his rela- 
tion to man, and of man and his relation to God. 

4. What relation does philosophy sustain to theology ? 

Philosophy includes, 1st, the systematic treatment of all that 
the reason of man teaches with regard to God, and those neces- 
sary and universal ideas, e. g., space and time, cause and effect, 
right and wrong, etc., which lie at the basis of all human thought. 



PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. 39 

2d. The discovery and systematic treatment of all the known facts 
of man's spiritual nature, i. e., psychology, or the science of mind. 
3d. The discovery and systematic treatment of all the known 
facts of God's works in material nature, *. e., physical and physi- 
ological science in all their departments. 4th. The systematic 
treatment of all the known facts of God's direction of human 
actions in the events of history. 

In its higher departments, philosophy includes the ground of 
natural theology, as explained under the preceding question. 

In all its departments philosophy sustains to revealed the- 
ology solely the relation of an humble handmaid : 1st. By dem- 
onstrating the weakness and narrow limits of human reason, and 
the utter impossibility of the human mind, as at present consti- 
tuted, either solving or finally dismissing certain insolvable ques- 
tions conditioning every system of theological or philosophical 
thought. For " no difficulty emerges in theology which had not 
previously emerged in philosophy." Thus teaching " that hu- 
mility is the cardinal virtue, not only of revelation, but of rea- 
son," (Sir W. Hamilton's Discussions, p. 588), and thus proving 
the necessity for a supernatural revelation, and inculcating the 
necessity of a docile spirit upon the part of the interpreters of 
the inspired record. 2d. By helping us to understand more accu- 
rately the constitution of the human soul and the works of God 
in creation, and thus to interpret more intelligently the doctrines 
of revelation, as far as the constitution of man and the laws of 
outward nature are involved therein. 

As a fact, however, the philosophy prevalent in any age or 
nation has always, because of the presumption of the human in- 
tellect, been allowed to intrude upon and pervert in a greater or 
less degree the cotemporaneous theology. Witness the influence 
of Neo Platonism upon the early church ; the supreme reign, of 
the philosophy of Aristotle over the western church during the 
middle ages ; the influence of the sensational philosophy of Hobes- 
and Locke over the theological thinking of the school of Priestly 
in England, and of France during the last century., and of New 
England until to-day ; the influence of the rationalistic philo- 
sophy of Leibnitz, Kant, etc., over the theology of Germany, 
France of the present clay, and the followers of Qoleridge and. 



40 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOUKCES. 

Carlyle down to the Parker and Emerson school in America. — See 
Pearson on Infidelity, part ii., chap. 2. 

5. What is the true source of an authoritative theology ? and 
what are the three great parties which stand opposed to one an- 
other on this subject ? 

I. The nationalists, who are of different schools, (see below, 
question 8), yet unite in the common principle of exalting 
human reason as either the sole and sufficient source, or at least 
the measure and judge of all possible knowledge of G-od on the 
part of man. 

II. The Komanists, who, denying that knowledge is necessary 
to genuine faith, or that faith is founded in any sense upon reason, 
maintain that the authority of the church as an infallible teacher 
is the ultimate foundation of all confidence, and that the Holy 
Scriptures, and ecclesiastical tradition as ascertained and inter- 
preted by the church, are the sole sources of theological knowl- 
edge. — See below, chap. vi. and chap xxvii., question 6. 

III. Protestants occupy an intermediate position between 
the two extremes just stated. These hold (1.) That reason 
is an original revelation of God to man, and therefore no subse- 
quent supernatural revelation can be given to man, which is not, 
a, addressed to us as rational beings, and through the channel of 
our reasons, and b, consistent with the clear and certain deduc- 
tions of reason acting legitimately within her own sphere. (2.) 
As reason has, by all experience, been proved insufficient to guide 
man in religious knowledge, and as Grod has been pleased to put 
into our hands an infallible record of a supernatural and all-suffi- 
cient revelation of himself, therefore the ultimate ground of our 
confidence, and source of all our theological knowledge, is solely 
the word of God signified in the Holy Scriptures. (3.) Never- 
theless, as revelation is addressed to our reason, (by reason includ- 
ing heart and conscience with the understanding), therefore its 
evidences are to be authenticated to reason, and the words of the 
record interpreted by reason according to her own laws. 

6. Hoio can the position of the Romish Church on this subject 
be disproved ? 

The Komish position with regard to ecclesiastical tradition 



EATIONALISM. 41 

and the authority of the church as an inspired teacher are shown 
to he false in the chapter on " The Scriptures the only Kule of 
Faith and Judge of Controversies." 

I would say here in addition that the Komanist, in advocating 
his system of implicit faith, has to reason in order to prove that 
reason is a false guide. The Protestant, on the other hand, rea- 
sons in order to prove that reason in itself is insufficient, but that 
in her last result she leads to a revelation that readies beyond, 
though it can not contradict her. 

7. What are the different senses in which the term reason is 
used ? 

Sometimes the term reason is used as equivalent to the mere 
understanding as distinct from the higher moral and intuitive 
faculties of the soul. Sometimes it is used with exclusive refer- 
ence to the & priori exercises of reason, in exclusion of all the 
materials of experience and history. 

In this connection we, on the other hand, use the word reason 
to include the whole of man's faculty of knowing the truth as it 
exists at present in his fallen condition, informed by all the lights 
of his moral, emotional and spiritual nature, by his personal ex- 
perience, and by all the natural light of the world without, as the 
works of God and the history of mankind. 

8. What are the different positions held by the several classes 
of Rationalists ? 

The term Rationalist and Rationalistic have been used in dif- 
ferent schools in very different senses. In general, however, it 
may be said, 1st, that in philosophy that system is rationalistic 
which, in a greater or less degree, starts from a priori principles 
constitutional to the human mind, and interprets all experience 
and history, except in those extreme systems where the validity 
of experience and history is altogether denied, in subordination to 
these principles. Thus every philosophical system may be said 
in some sense to be rationalistic which does not draw all knowl- 
edge from the bodily senses. But, 2d, in Christian theology that 
system is properly called rationalistic which either rejects the pos- 
sibility of a supernatural revelation altogether, or which inter- 
prets the records of that revelation in subordination to the pre- 



42 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 

viously settled conclusions of the human intellect, or the intuitive 
sentiments of the human heart. Thus, when any philosophy 
whatsoever is allowed to modify the interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures by its own independent principles, the result is a rational- 
istic system, whether the philosophy so modifying them is itself 
rationalistic or eminently the reverse. For instance, 1st. The 
rationalism of Priestly and the old school of English and American 
Unitarians sprang from interpreting the Scriptures under the rule 
of the lowest sensational and materialistic philosophy. 2d. The 
rationalism of the modern Germans and their disciples in England 
and America springs from subjecting all revelation to the supreme 
rule of the a priori principles of reason. 3d. The rationalism of 
the new school of Newman and Parker, self-styled " spiritual," has 
its source in elevating the natural, moral intuitions and feelings 
common to all men to the seat of supreme judge. 

It will serve a good purpose to group the different classes of 
rationalists thus. 

I. Those who deny the possibility and necessity of a super- 
natural revelation at all. 

(1.) The Pantheists of all schools. They maintain that since 
God is equally in all things and in all events, all phenomena are 
consequently equally modifications, and therefore equally revela- 
tions of him. There is a higher, though not more real sense, in 
which God reveals himself in man, and most conspicuously in 
heroic men, so that in a rising scale of revelation, God is in the 
same sense, though in different degrees, revealed in Plato, Moses, 
Paul, and Jesus Christ. 

(2.) Others, as F. W. Newman, Theodore Parker, etc., and in 
tendency certainly Mr. Morell, in his " Philosophy of Keligion," 
maintain that from the very nature of religion the object, and 
from the constitution of man the subject, of divine knowledge, no 
religious revelation is possible to man, except through the exer- 
cise of his natural faculty of spiritual intuition. Newman and 
Parker maintain that this intuition is sufficient for man in its 
normal state, and that there is therefore an element of permanent 
and universal truth common to Christianity and all other relig- 
ions, while the special history and doctrines of all of them are the 
mere outward symbols which thinkers of the nineteenth century 
have outgrown. Morell, on the other hand, admits that in the 



SUPERNATURAL REVELATION POSSIBLE. 43 

case of the writers of the Christian Scriptures, this natural faculty 
of spiritual intuition was exalted in a manner very much the same 
as that which we understand by spiritual illumination, which ac- 
companies every case of genuine Christian sanctification ; thus 
the apostles were inspired only in so far as they were preeminently 
holy and profoundly experienced in divine things. 

(3.) Others hold, like the old Deists, that no revelation has 
been given, because none was needed. Stealing their conceptions 
of God from revelation, they argue from the sufficiency of the 
knowledge which natural theology presents that no supernatural 
revelation is necessary. 

II. There remains another large class of rationalists, distin- 
guished among themselves however by many special triats, and 
carrying their principles to very various degrees, who, while ad- 
mitting the fact of a divine revelation, assert the right of reason 
to sit in judgment upon the truth, and to discriminate in the 
record the true from the false. Thus, (1.) different inspired books 
have been rejected on internal evidence. (2.) The supernatural 
element has been declared irrational. The old school rationalists 
denied that this element was in the Scriptures, and try by des- 
perate feats of exegesis to prove it not there. The result of that 
controversy has anihilated that school of rationalists for ever. 
The new school admit that there is a supernatural element in the 
Scriptures, and that so far forth the Scriptures are not pure, 
rational truth, and are to be improved upon. (3.) The distin- 
guishing doctrines of the gospel have either been rejected or radi- 
cally perverted, because regarded in their genuine form inconsist- 
ent with man's innate, moral sentiments. — See Mansel's Lectures 
of Eeligious Thought, Lecture 1, and Pearson on Infidelity, Part 
L, chap. iii. and iv. 

9. Hoiv may it he shown that a supernatural revelation is 
possible ? 

The natural sources through which men derive whatever 
knowledge they may attain to by nature are, 1st, Their bodily 
senses ; 2d, Their inward consciousness informing them through 
the laws of their own mental, moral, and emotional constitution. 
3d. By reflection and imagination these materials of knowledge 
are with infinite variety rearranged in new relations, and new 



44 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 

consequences are logically deduced from them. 4th. The experi- 
ence and the results of the reflection of other men, conveyed to 
them through language. 

Now it appears self-evident that the Grod who made man may 
at any time convey to men any new knowledge their faculties are 
capable of receiving. 

I. Even new simple ideas may be excited within his mind by 
means of a supernatural spiritual illumination and inward expe- 
rience. God does act upon the finite soul, though we can not 
understand how he acts ; and yet we can understand that if such 
an experience be excited in the mind, the man would have the 
same knowledge of the matter of this new experience that he has 
of the matter of his perceptions through his bodily senses. 

II. It is clear that Grod may convey by means of visions, lan- 
guage or otherwise any information not involving new elementary 
ideas, just as any man may, by means of signs, convey any such 
information that he is possessed of to the mind of another. 

Many modern rationalists make a very senseless objection to 
the possibility of what they call a " book revelation." They ar- 
gue that a book is composed of words, and that words are mere 
arbitrary signs which have power to excite only those ideas which 
are already in the mind ; and therefore if Paul, by a divine influ- 
ence, had been elevated to the intuition of a new spiritual truth, 
he could not by words communicate those spiritual truths to any 
who have not already the same ideas latent in their minds. In 
answer to this, we admit that simple or elementary ideas can not 
be first taught by words. No man can know color without an 
eye, or moral right without a moral sense. — (See Lock's Essay, 
Book IV., chap, xviii, sect. 3.) But, on the other hand, it is too 
plain to be denied. 

I. That the revelations of the Bible consist principally of facts, 
promises, commands, and threatenings, and that the reception of 
no new elementary ideas, in the proper sense of that word, is in- 
volved in Christian faith. The primary ideas of the soul, intellec- 
tual and moral, are involved in this revelation, and gloriously ex- 
alted in new combinations and relations. — See Alexander's Moral 
Science, chaps, ii. and xii. 

II. That Grod can convey to man, by means of language, in- 
formation with regard to himself and his purposes, not involving 



SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NECESSARY. 45 

new elementary ideas, just as clearly and as certainly as one man 
can convey any new information to any other. 

III. The Scriptures themselves teach that the spiritual beauty 
and power of the revelation they convey can be discerned only by 
means of a supernatural spiritual illumination and inward practi- 
cal experience. The work of the Spirit accompanying the word 
completes the revelation ; and although the Spirit thus dispensed 
communicates no new truth, but only leads the heart and con- 
science to the experience of the full spiritual idea conveyed by the 
word, yet there is a true sense in which the Bible is a revelation 
only to those who have the Spirit. 

10. How may it be shown that a supernatural revelation is 
necessary for man ? 

I. From reason itself ; for, although in man's original con- 
dition reason doubtless was a sufficient guide, yet reason itself 
teaches us (1.) that man's intellectual and moral nature is disor- 
dered and not capable of perfectly fulfilling its original functions. 
(2.) That man's relations to God are complicated by guilt and 
alienation, and that the light of nature discovers no remedy for 
men in this state. 

11. The human heart universal craves such revelation from 
G-od, and has always manifested its readiness to receive even 
counterfeits of one in the absence of the true. 

III. Keason has never, in the entire course of human history, 
availed to afford man religious comfort and certainty, and to lead 
him in the way of moral rectitude. — 1 Cor. i., 20, 21. Kevela- 
tion has. Both have been tried upon a wide scale, the one has 
proved sufficient, the other has failed. 

IY. The highest prophets of reason are not agreed among 
themselves ; no two prominent rationalists agree as to what the 
all sufficient and universal religious teaching of reason is. Their 
mutual inconsistency demonstrates the worthlessness of then com- 
mon principle. 

II. What is the distinction between reason and faith, and 
what in the legitimate use of reason in the sphere of religion ? 

The general definition of faith is, " assent to the truth upon 
the exhibition of its appropriate evidence/' (see Chapter on Faith.) 



46 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 

This assent in many of its modes is an act of the understanding 
alone, and in all cases it involves the action of the understanding, 
working concurrently with the will (or heart). But when we 
contrast faith and reason as mutually exclusive, then we define 
reason to be man's natural faculty of reaching the truth, includ- 
ing his understanding , heart, conscience, and experience, acting 
under natural circumstances, and without any supernatural as- 
sistance. And we define faith, on the other hand, to be the assent 
of the mind to truth, upon the testimony of God, conveying knowl- 
edge to us through supernatural channels. As to the authority 
and legitimate use of reason in the sphere of theology, Protest- 
ants admit, 

I. That reason is the original and fundamental revelation of 
God to man. 

II. Keason is therefore involved and presupposed in every 
other revelation God will ever give to man. The Scriptures ad- 
dress us as rational creatures, and to the irrational they are no 
more a revelation than light is to the blind. 

III. God can not even be supposed to reveal any thing which 
contradicts reason, acting legitimately within her own province. 
For then (1.) would God, who speaks first in reason, contradict 
himself, and (2.) faith would be impossible. To believe is to as- 
sent to a thing as true. To see a thing to be contrary to reason 
is to see it not to be true. These opposite states of mind can not 
concur at the same time. 

But, on the other hand, Protestants maintain that it is essen- 
tial for us to settle definitely the limits of the office of reason with 
regard to divine things. 

I. It is self-evident that there is a total difference between a 
thing being above reason, and its being clearly contrary to reason, 
acting legitimately in its own sjDhere. The ignorant boor has no 
right to measure the philosopher by his standard ; and much less, 
of course, has the philosopher a right to measure God by his. 
Many things are claimed to be contrary to reason which only ap- 
pear to be such because of our ignorance. " Humility becomes 
the cardinal virtue, not only of revelation but of reason." 

II. Human reason utterly fails to grasp the idea of the in- 
finite, or to understand the relation of the infinite to the finite. 
From this universal incapacity springs the mystery which attends 



TRUE OFFICE OF EEASON. 47 

so many of the revelations and providential dispensations of the 
infinite God. Hence the insolvable nature of such questions as 
the origin of evil, divine foreknowledge, foreordination, and 
concurrent providence with relation to the free agency of man, 
etc., etc. 

III. Hence it follows that reason can not he the measure of 
our faith ; we must believe, and that rationally, much that we 
can not understand. We must use reason to reach the knowledge 
of what God means by his words, and what he would have us be- 
lieve. But to understand the meaning of words is one thing, and 
to understand how the thing we believe exists in all of its rela- 
tions, is entirely a different thing. We believe ten thousand 
things with respect to the phenomena of our earthly life that we 
can not understand ; how much more may we do so rationally 
with respect to the information conveyed to us by a supernatural 
revelation concerning divine things. 

IV. Hence it follows that reason can not be the ultimate 
ground of our faith ; this rests only upon the knowledge and 
truth of God, who speaks to us in his word. Keason established 
the fact that God speaks, but when we know what he says, we 
believe it because he says it. 

The use of reason in the sphere of theology is, 1st, to exa- 
mine the authenticating evidence of revelation, and to decide the 
fact that God is speaking therein. 

2d. To interpret, with the help of every light of the most va- 
rious learning, the records of revelation, and to determine impar- 
tially what God does say to us therein. 

This work of interpretation includes besides the grammatical 
rendering of every text by itself, the careful comparison of Scrip- 
ture with Scripture, the limitation of one class of passages by an- 
other bearing upon the same subject, and thus a development, by 
an impartial induction from all Scripture, of the entire harmon- 
ious system of truth God has therein revealed. 

3d. Be it remembered that reason can accomplish this much 
successfully only as it is informed by a sanctified heart, and guided 
by the Holy Ghost. 

4th. Beason can be of further use in this matter only as the 
servant and instrument of faith, in promulgating, illustrating, and 
in defending the truth. 



48' 



THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES. 



12. Give a summary statement of the different departments 
of Christian theology ? 

The three grand departments of Christian theology are, I. 
The Exegetical, the object of which is to arrive at the exact mind 
of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the text. This depart- 
ment includes as preparatory the study of the original languages, 
the critical settlement of the text in its integrity, also Biblical 
geography, antiquities, and the science of the Old Testament types 
in their relation to the gospel. 

II. The Dogmatic, or Systematic, the object of which is by 
means of a just comparison and impartial induction from the 
sacred text truly interpreted, to present a scientific exhibition of 
all the doctrines of the Bible in their essential relations. This 
includes (1.) Anthropology, or the teaching of the Scripture con- 
cerning man and his relation to God. (2.) Theology proper, or 
the doctrine concerning God and his relation to man, and (3.) 
Soterology, or the doctrine of salvation. 

III. The Practical, the object of which is to deduce from the 
doctrines and precepts of the Bible rules for the organization and 
administration of the Christian Church in all her functions, and 
for the guidance of the individual Christian in all the relations of 
life. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

1. How may the evidences authenticating the truth of Chris- 
tianity be classified ? 

They have been most coramonly classified as, 1st. External, 
i e., Those evidences which accompanied the persons who acted as 
the organs of revelation and authenticated their claims, e.g., mir- 
acles and prophecy. 2d. Internal, i. e., Those evidences which 
are inherent in the divine message and in the inspired records 
thereof, such as may be decided without any reference to external 
sources of fact and testimony, e. g., the moral perfection of the 
Christian system, the miraculous harmony of all the books, the 
supernatural intelligence they discover, the spiritual power of the 
truth, etc., etc. 

Another classification, less common, but more exact, may be 
founded upon the distinction between the different principles of 
the human soul to which the several kinds of evidence are ad- 
dressed. Thus, 1st. The rational evidence, or that which presents 
itself to the rational faculties of man. This class embraces the 
evidence of history, miracles, prophecy, undesigned coincidences, 
general harmony of records, etc. 2d. The moral evidence, or that 
which presents itself to the judgment of the moral sense. 3d. 
Spiritual evidence, or that which can be judged only by the spirit- 
ual man as the result of his personal experience of the power of 
these truths when spiritually discerned. 

A third classification may be presented thus, 1st. These vari- 
ous sources of evidence theoretically considered, i. e., treated by 
the understanding as the basis of a theoretical judgment. 2d,. 
That practical evidence which results from putting the principles 
of Christianity, its precepts and promises to the test of practical 
experience. 



50 THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Without following either of these principles exclusively, I 
shall attempt to establish the following positions in the order. 

1st. God and human nature, being what they are clearly known 
to be in the mere light of reason and experience, a special revelation 
from God to man is antecedently in the highest sense probable. 

2d. The Old and New Testaments, whether the word of God 
or not, are, beyond question, both genuine and authentic his- 
torical records. 

3d. The miracles alleged in evidence of the Christian religion 
are established as facts by abundant testimony, and when ad- 
mitted as facts they invincibly demonstrate the religion they ac- 
company to be from God. 

4th. The same is true with regard to the prophesies contained 
in the Scriptures. The truth of Christianity is established also — 

5th. By the miraculous harmony of all the books, and by the 
other phenomena of supernatural knowledge which they present. 

6th. By the character of the moral system they teach. 

7th. By the character of its Founder. 

8th. By the spiritual power of Christianity, as testified in the 
religious experience of its individual subjects, and also by its wider 
influence over communities and nations in successive generations. 

9th. By the history of its early successes. 

2. How can it be proved that a supernatural revelation from 
God to man is antecedently probable ? 

We have already exhibited the evidences derived from the 
evident traces of design in the creation, and from the no less evi- 
dent character of that design in its relation to sensitive creatures, 
and from the phenomena of conscience, that God is infinitely in- 
telligent, benevolent, and righteous. He not only^provides for 
all the wants of his creatures as they occur, but he always adapts 
their condition and circumstances to the nature with which he has 
endowed them. 

But the preeminent characteristics of man are : 1st. That 
he is a moral agent, and therefore needs a clearly revealed rule of 
duty. 2d. That he is essentially religious. Universal history 
proves the universality and supreme power of this principle in the 
,human heart. 

In a state of nature this craving after God uniformly reveals 



SCRIPTURES AUTHENTIC HISTORY. 51 

man's moral and religious darkness. Fear and uncertainty char- 
acterize every one of the thousand forms assumed by false re- 
ligions, and the heart of man everywhere longs for light and cer- 
tainty. — Acts xvii., 23. 

The intelligence of God leads us to hope that he has adapted 
the means to the end, and that he will crown a religious nature 
with a supernatural religion. 

The benevolence of God leads us to hope that he will relieve 
the grievous bewilderment and avert the danger of his creatures. 

The righteousness of God leads us to hope that he will speak 
in distinct and authorative tones to the conscience. 

Having already revealed himself in nature, though only suf- 
ficiently to stimulate us to uncertain and painful action, we may 
surely hope that by a second revelation he will lead us to cer- 
tainty, if not to peace. 

3. What two points are involved in the proposition, that the 
sacred Scriptures, luhether the ivord of God or not, are yet un- 
questionably genuine and authentic historical records ? 

1st. That the Old and New Testaments were written respec- 
tively by the several writers, and in the several ages which they 
themselves set forth, and that they have come down to us without- 
material change. 

2d. That these writers were honest and intelligent, men who 
proposed to themselves to write authentic history. 

4. Hoio can it be proved that these books were ivritten by the 
authors, by ivhom, and at the times in which they respectively 
profess to have been written ? 

The evidence establishing this fact in behalf of both Testa- 
ments is greater than that establishing the genuineness of all 
other ancient writings put together, This evidence is set forth at 
large under Chapter VI., on the Canon. They may be summarily 
indicated thus : — 

1st. These writings are in the precise language, dialect, and 
general style which are known to be proper to their professed 
authors and age. 

2d. The Jews and Christians, who were cotemporaries of the 
authors of these books, received them as inspired, circulated them 



52 THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

in all synagogues and churches, transcribed and preserved them 
with superstitious care. 

3d. There remain to this day, among both Jews and Chris- 
tians, those institutions and monuments the origin of which these 
records relate as part of their cotemporaneous history ; the fact 
of the institution verifying, of course, both the credibility of the 
writings and the cotemporaneousness of their origin respectively 
with that of the institutions they describe. 

4th. As to the Old Testament. The Pentateuch has been in 
the keeping of hostile parties, Jewish and Samaritan, since at 
least six or seven hundred years before Christ. The whole Old 
Testament has been in the custody both of Jews and Christians 
ever since the birth of Christ. 

5th. The evidence borne by ancient versions. 

6th. The testimony of Josephus and the Christian Fathers of 
the first three centuries, presented in their lists of the sacred books 
and numerous quotations from them. 

5. How can it be proved that these writings contain authentic 
history ? 

1st. Leslie, in his "Short Method with the Deists," sets down 
the four following marks as establishing, when they all meet to- 
gether, beyond all doubt the truth of any matter of fact. 

(1.) That the matter of fact be such that men's outward 
senses may be judges of it. 

(2.) That it be done openly in the face of the world. 

(3.) That not only public monuments be kept up in memory 
of it, but some outward action be performed. 

(4.) That such monuments and such actions be instituted, 
and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was 
done. 

All of these marks concur in establishing the truth of the 
most remarkable facts related in the inspired records, and conse- 
quently in confirming their truth as a whole. These monuments 
and actions are such as follows : The weekly Sabbath, circum- 
cision, the passover, the yearly feasts, the Aaronic priesthood, 
the temple and its services, baptism, the Lord's supper, and the 
Christian ministry. These must date from the facts they com- 
memorate, and prove that the cotemporaries of those facts, and 



MIRACLES. 53 

every generation of their descendants since, have believed the 
history to be authentic. 

2d. Many of the principal facts are corroborated by nearly co- 
temporary infidel writers, as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc. 

3d. Many of the facts of the gospel history are corroborated 
by, it is said, as many as fifty Christian authors of the first four 
centuries. — Angus' Bible Handbook, page 85. 

4th. The sacred historians are perfectly accurate whenever they 
allude to any facts of cotemporaneous profane history, e. g., Luke 
ii., 1, etc. — See Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. Paul. 

5th. The character of the writers. (1.) They were honest a 
because their doctrine was holy — bad men never would have taught 
such a code, good men would not wilfully deceive ; b, because both 
prophets and apostles sealed their testimony by their sufferings 
and death ; and c because of their evident candor in narrating 
many things to their own disadvantage, personally, and appar- 
ently inimical to the interests of their cause. — See Paley's Evi- 
dences, Part II. (2.) They were not fanatics, because the modesty 
and moderation of their words and actions is as manifest as their 
zeal. 

6th. There exists the most accurate agreement between the 
several historical books, as to matters of fact, and such subtle co- 
incidences as to details between narratives widely differing in form 
and purpose, that all suspicion of fraud is rendered impossible. — 
See Paley's Horaa Paulinas and Blunt' s Undesigned Coincidences. 

7th. All of their geographical and local allusions and refer- 
ences to the customs of ancient nations are verified by modern re- 
search. 

6. What is a miracle, and how are such events designated in 
Scripture ? 

A miracle is an act of G-od, the physical effect of which is visi- 
ble and evidently incapable of being rationally assigned to any 
natural cause, designed as a sign authenticating the divine mis- 
sion of some religious teacher. 

These are called, therefore, in the New Testament sometimes, 
t'pya, works, John v., 36 ; vii., 21 ; sometimes, gt\\luqv^ a sign, 
Mark xvi., 20 ; sometimes, 6vvd\iEiq, translated in our version, 
wonderful works, Matthew vii., 22, and mighty works, Matthew 



54 THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

xi, 20, and miracles, Acts ii., 22 ; sometimes, repag, ivonder. 
" Signs, wonders, and powers, or miracles," occur together, Acts 
ii., 22 ; 2 Corinthians xii., 12 ; Hebrews ii., 4. 

7. JFAa£ *'$ Hume's famous argument against the credibility 
of miracles, and how may that argument be disposed of ? 

Hume argues, 1st, that miracles are professedly established on 
the evidence of human testimony. 2d. That the power of human 
testimony to induce our faith arises from our experience of the 
truthfulness of testimony. 3d. In cases of conflicting evidence 
we must weigh the one against the other and decide for the 
stronger. 4th. That a miracle is a violation of a law of nature. 
But the universal experience of ourselves, and of the whole human 
family, prove that the laws of nature are uniform without excep- 
tion. We have, then, universal experience against the testimony 
of a few men, and, on the other hand, only a partial experience 
that human testimony is credible, for all testimony is not true. 
No amount of human testimony, therefore, the credibility of 
which is guaranteed only by a partial experience, can induce a 
rational belief that the laws of nature were suspended, because 
their absolute uniformity is established by universal experience. 

In answer we admit that universal experience establishes the 
uniformity of a law of nature as such. But it is this precisely 
that makes a miracle possible, otherwise we could not discrimi- 
nate between the natural and the supernatural. A miracle is a 
supernatural act, and universal experience testifies nothing upon 
the subject, further than that nature being uniform, a supernat- 
ural act might be recognized as such, if it occurred. Negative 
evidence has no force against well established positive evidence. 
But the fact that men in China never saw a miracle in six thou- 
sand years proves absolutely nothing as to whether men in Judea 
did or did not see them on many occasions. 

More men and worthier -have seen miracles than ever were in 
a condition to prove by testimony the descent of meteoric stones. 
Does water never freeze because universal experience in Africa 
knows nothing of such a phenomenon ? 

Hume argued that miracles are incredible, that even if they 
occurred they could not be established on the evidence of human 
testimony. Stauss, and the German Pantheists generally, main- 



CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESMAMENT MIRACLES. 55 

tain that miracles are impossible. They hold nature to be an 
eternal and necessary development of God, it, therefore, can not 
be suspended or violated. A miracle, therefore, being a suspen- 
sion of the laws of nature, is impossible. 

8. How far do miracles, when the fact of their occurrence is 
clearly established, avail to authenticate a divine revelation ? 

Some object that miracles may be wrought by evil spirits in 
support of the kingdom of darkness, Matthew xxiv., 24 ; 2 Thes- 
salonians ii., 9 ; Kevelations xiii., 13. To this class they refer 
witchcraft, sorcery, spirit-rapping, etc., (see Trench on Miracles, 
Preliminary Essays, chap, iii.) But surely the genuine miracle, 
being an act of God, can always, as every other divine act, be dis- 
tinguished from the works of Satan. The marks are, the charac- 
ter of the person and of the doctrine in authentication of which 
the miracle is wrought, and the character of the miracle itself. 
Jesus constantly appeals to the miracles which he wrought as 
conclusive evidence as to the divinity of his mission. — John v., 
36 and.xiv., 11 ; Hebrews ii., 4. 

9. In ivhat essential qualities is the unquestionable genuine- 
ness of the New Testament miracles made manifest. ? 

1st. The dignity, power and benevolence of the works them- 
selves. 

2d. The peerless dignity and purity of the men whose missions 
they authenticated. 

3d. The purity and spiritual power of the doctrines they ac- 
company. 

4th. Moreover, God's revelation constitutes one system, evolved 
gradually through seventeen centuries from Moses to the Apostle 
John, every step of which mutually gives and receives authentica- 
tion from all that precedes and follows. Taking the two dispen- 
sations in their historical, typical and prophetical relations, the 
miracles performed in their several epochs mutually confirm one 
another. 

Besides all this, the gospel miracles were definite, and unques- 
tionably supernatural events, and were easily seen and recognized 
as such by all intelligent witnesses ; they were performed in the 
sight of multitudes in various places, and on different occasions ; 



56 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. — PROPHECY. 

they were accurately recorded by several witnesses who, while 
varying as to details, corroborate each other ; and they were never 
disproved by early enemies, nor doubted by early friends. 

10. What is a prophecy, and hoiv does it avail to authenticate 
a revelation claiming to be divine ? 

Prophecy has been well described as a miracle of knowledge, 
as those works of God, commonly so called, are miracles of power. 
A prophecy is a communication by God of supernatural knowl- 
edge concerning the future, with the design of proving thereby the 
divine origin of a message claiming to be from God. 

A miracle of power proves itself such at once, and is then 
handed down to future generations only by the testimony of eye- 
witnesses. A prophecy, or miracle of knowledge, proves itself to 
be such only subsequently by its fulfillment, while, on the other 
hand, it has the advantage of always remaining a monument of 
its own truth, cotemporaneous with every succeeding generation. 

Besides verbal prophecies, the Old Testament is full of types, 
or prophetical symbols, which have their exact fulfillment in the 
person and works of Christ. 

11. What are the discriminating marks which must neces- 
sarily concur in any unquestionably authentic prophecy ? 

1st. It must have been uttered as a prophecy from the begin- 
ning. A happy coincidence must not be allowed to occasion such 
a claim as an after-thought. 

2d. The prophecy must have a definite meaning, which is 
brought to light and put beyond question by the fulfillment. 
The more definite the statement, and the greater number of de- 
tails corresponding between the prophecy and the event, the more 
conclusive is the evidence. 

3d. The prophecy must not be of such a character that it can 
lead to its own fulfillment, by way of suggestion to the human 
agents engaged therein. 

4th. It must be worthy of God, as to dignity and purity, both 
in its own character and in the system of faith and practice with 
which it is associated. — Dr. McGill in University Lectures. 

12. State some of the more remarkable instances of fulfilled 
prophecy. 



CONSTITUTION OF SCRIPTURE. 57 

1st. Old Testament prophecies concerning, (1.), the present 
state of the Jews. — Hosea, ix., 17 ; Jer. xxiv., 9, and (2.) ; Tyre, 
Isa. chap, xxiii. ; Joel iii., 4-6 ; Ezek. chaps, xxvi.-xxviii. ; 
Amos i., 9 and 10 ; Zech. ix., 1-8. (3.) Nineveh, Nahuro, i., 8, 
9 ; ii., 8-13 ; iii., 17-19, and Zeph. ii., 13-15. (4.) Babylon, Is. 
chaps, xiii., xiv., xliv., and xlv. ; Jer. chaps. 1. and li. (5.) The 
Chaldean, Medeo-Persian, Grecian and Roman empires, Dan. ii., 
31-45 ; vii., 17-20, and chaps, viii. and ix. 

2d. The Old Testament predictions concerning Christ. Gen. 
xlix., 10 ; Is. vii., 14 ; ix., 6 and 7 ; xi., 1 and 2 ; xlii., 1-4, and 
chap. liii. ; Dan. ix., 24-27 ; Ps. xvi., 10 ; Zech. xi., 12, 13 ; Hag. 
ii., 6-9 ; Mai. iii., 1 ; Micah, v., 2. 

3d. The predictions uttered by Christ and the Apostles. (1.) 
The destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. chap, xxiv ; Mark, chap, xiii., 
and Luke, chap. xxi. (2.) The anti-Christian apostacy, 2 Thess. 
ii., 3-12 : 1 Tim. iv., 1-4. — Homes' Introduction. 

13. Show that the relation which the different books of Scrip- 
ture and their contents sustain to each other prove them to con- 
stitute one divinely inspired ivhole. 

This wonderful constitution of the sacred volume is a miracle 
of intelligence, the authenticating evidence of which is, therefore, 
analogous to that furnished by prophecy. It consists of sixty- 
six separate books, including every form of composition on every 
variety of subject, composed by about forty different writers of 
every condition in life, from peasant to prince, writing at intervals 
through seventeen centuries of time, from Moses to the death of 
the Apostle John. These men develope a revelation which is 
constantly unfolding itself through all those years. The pre- 
paratory portions served a temporary purpose in the immediate 
circumstances under which they were written, yet their true sig- 
nificance lay hid in their typical and prophetical relation to the 
parts that were to come. Now that we possess the whole, we can 
easily see that during all those years those various writers elabor- 
ated, without concert, one work ; each subordinate part finding 
its highest reason in the great center and keystone of the whole, 
the person of Christ. Each successive part fulfilled all that has 
preceded it, and adjusted itself prophetically to all that came 
after. The preparatory system as a whole is fulfilled in the gos- 



58 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

pel ; each type in its an ti- type, each prophecy in its event. This 
intelligence is the mind of God, which is the same through all 
times, and which, adjusting all details, comprehends all in one 
end. — Dr. R. J. Breckenridge in University Lectures. 

14. In what other respects do the Scriptures present the phe- 
nomena of a supernatural intelligence ? 

Every other ancient writing, attempting to set forth the origin, 
nature and destiny of man, whether it be professedly divine, as 
the Hindoo Veds, or simply the record of human speculation, as 
the works of Aristotle and Plato, betrays total ignorance as to 
astronomy, geography, terrestrial physics, and as to the intellec- 
tual and spiritual nature of man. Modern science overthrows the 
claims of every uninspired ancient writing to authority on these 
subjects. But observe, 

1st. The Scriptures teach us all we know concerning the early 
history of the human race and the colonization of the principal 
divisions of the earth. The facts which they reveal explain much 
otherwise dark, and they come in contact with not one well estab- 
lished fact otherwise known. — Gen. chap. 10. 

2d. This early history gives us the only known, and, in the 
view of reason, a transcendently luminous explanation, of many 
questions growing out of the painful mystery of man's present 
moral condition and relations. 

3d. These writings alone, of- all ever written, are entirely free 
from all the errors and prejudices of the age and people from whom 
they sprang ; and from the earliest ages the results of human 
science, in its gradual advance, have without a single exception 
fallen into perfect harmony with them, so that the writings of 
Moses, sixteen centuries b. c, stand fully abreast of the last attain- 
ments of the human mind in the ninteenth century after Christ. 

4th. The Ten Commandments, as a generalized statement of 
all human duties, the Proverbs of Solomon, as the highest lessons 
of practical wisdom, the Psalms of David, as utterances of the 
most profound religious experiences, all have remained for thirty 
centuries unapproachably the best of their kind. 

5th. No other writing has exercised such power over the human 
conscience, or probed so deeply the human heart. This power it 
has tested upon the ignorant and the learned, the savage and the 






MORAL EVIDENCE. 59 

refined, the virtuous and the vicious, the young and the old, of 
every generation and tribe of men. Yet these books proceeded 
from the Jewish nation, a people rude and ignorant, and more 
narrow and bigoted than any other, and from writers chiefly drawn 
from the least educated classes. Surely they must have been 
moved by the Spirit of God. 

15. How may the divine origin of Christianity be argued 
from its moral character ? 

It is neither a well-founded nor a safe position for the advo- 
cates of revelation to assume that they are competent to form an 
d priori judgment of the kind of revelation that God ought to 
make. Yet let it be considered that, although we cannot always 
know what it is wise for God to do, nor see the wisdom of all he 
has done, yet we can infallibly discern in his works the presence 
of a supernatural intelligence. Precisely so we cannot prescribe 
what it is right for God to do, nor always understand the right- 
eousness of what he has done, nevertheless we can infallibly dis- 
cern in his word a moral excellence and power altogether super- 
human. 

The moral system taught in the Bible is — 

1st. The most perfect standard of righteousness ever known 
among men. (1.) It respects the inward state of the soul. (2.) 
The virtues which it inculcates, although many of them are re- 
pugnant to human pride, are, nevertheless, more essentially excel- 
lent than those originally set forth in any other system, e. g., hu- 
mility, meekness, long-suffering, patience, love the fulfilling of the 
law, and the intrinsic hatefulness and ill desert of all sin. 

2d. This morality is set forth as a duty we owe to an infinite 
God. His will is the rule, his love the motive, his glory the end 
of all duty. 

3d. It is enforced by the highest possible motives, e. g., infi- 
nite happiness and honor as the objects of God's approbation, or 
infinite misery and shame as the objects of his displeasure. 

4th. This moral system is perfectly adapted to the whole na- 
ture of man, physical, intellectual, moral, and to all of the multi- 
form relations which he sustains to his fellow-men and to God. 
It includes eveiy principle and rules every thought and emotion, 
and provides for every relation. It is never guilty of the least 



60 EVIDENCES OF CHKISTIANITY. 

solecism. It never falls below the highest right, and yet never 
generates enthusiasm or fanaticism, nor does it ever fail in any 
unexpected development of relations or circumstances. 

Hence we conclude — 

1st. That this system necessarily presupposes upon the part 
of its constructors a supernatural knowledge of man's nature and 
relations, and a supernatural capacity of adapting general princi- 
ples to the moral regulation of that nature under all relations. 

2d. This system, when compared with all others known to 
man, necessarily suggests the possession by its constructors of a 
supernaturally perfect ideal of moral excellence. 

3d. Bad men never could have conceived such a system, nor 
having conceived it, would they have desired, much less died, to 
to establish it. Good men never could have perpetrated such a 
fraud as the Bible is if not true. 

16. How is the divine origin of Christianity proved by the 
character of its Founder ? 

That character, as it is known to us, is the resultant of the 
biographical contributions severally of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
John. They evidently write without concert, and each with a 
special immediate object. They, in the most candid and inarti- 
ficial manner, detail his words and actions; they never generalize 
or sketch his character in abstract terms, nor attempt to put 
their subject, or the word or action related of him, in an advan- 
tageous light. 

Yet this character of Christ is — 

1st. Identical, (see Paley's Ev, Part II., chap, iv.,) i. e., these 
four different writers succeed in giving us one p'erfectly consistent 
character in every trait of thought, feeling, word, and action. 
They must have drawn therefore from the life. Such a composi- 
tion by four different hands, writing in their inartificial, unsyste- 
matic way, would be the most incredible of all miracles. 

2d. Unique and original. There have been many other 
redeemers, prophets, priests, and incarnate gods portrayed in 
mythology ; but this character confessedly stands without the 
shadow of competition in universal history or fiction. And Jews, 
of all men, were the authors of it. 

3d. Morally and spiritually perfect, by the confession of all 



EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, 61 

friends and foes. This perfection was not merely a negative free- 
dom from taint ; but the most positive and active holiness, and 
the miraculous blending of all virtues, strength, and gentleness, 
dignity and lowliness, unbending righteousuess and long-suffering 
patience and costliest grace, 

He must then have existed as he is portrayed. The concep- 
tion and execution of such a character by man would, as J. J. 
Rousseau confesses, be a greater miracle than its existence. If 
he existed he must have been the divine being he claimed. A 
miracle of intelligence, he could not have been deceived. A mir- 
acle of moral perfection, he could not have been an impostor. 

17. How is the Christian religion proved to be divine by the 
spiritucd power of its doctrines, and by the experience of all tclio 
sincerely put its precepts, provisions, and promises to the test of 
a practiced tried f 

Although man can not by his unassisted powers discover God, 
yet surely it belongs essentially to his spiritual nature that he can 
recognize God when he speaks. 

1st. The word of God reaches to and proves its power upon 
such deep and various principles of man's nature that even the 
unregenerate man recognizes its origin. It is a "fire and a 
hammer ;" it is a " discerner of the thoughts and intents of the 
heart. — Jer. xxiii.. 29: Heb. iv., 12. This profound grasp that the 
word takes of human nature is in spite of the fact that it degrades 
human pride, forbids the gratification of lust, and imposes irk- 
some duties and restraints upon the will. The mass of men are 
held subject to its power against their will. This is paralleled 
in no other religion. 

2d. All who faithfully put this revelation to the test of prac- 
tice finds it to be true in the deepest experiences of their souls. 
(1.) They experience as realities all it sets forth as promises. It 
does secure the forgiveness of their sins, their communion with 
God and joy in the Holy Ghost. " Doing his will they know the 
origin of his doctrines. — John vii., 17. (2.) They are witnesses to 
others. Men are by nature aliens from God and servants of sin. 
This revelation pledges itself that it can deliver them, and that 
none other can. The sum of all human experience upon the point 
is, that many Christians have been made thereby new and spin- 



62 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

tual men, and that no other system ever produced such an effect. — 
2 Cor. iii., 2 ; 3. Dr. K. J. Breckenridge's Univ. Lecture. (3.) This 
revelation makes provision also for all human wants. The 
more a man advances in religious experience the more does he 
find how infinitely adapted the grace of the gospel is to all pos- 
sible spiritual exigencies and capacities ; witness regeneration 
justification, adoption, sanctification, the intercession of the Son, 
the indwelling of the Spirit, the working together of all events in 
the spheres of providence and grace for our good, the resurrection 
of the body, eternal glory. And, as far as our earthly life goes, 
all these are actually experienced in their truth, their fullness, and 
their infinite capability of accommodation to every form of char- 
acter and circumstance. 

18. How may the divine origin of Christianity he proved 
from its effects, as witnessed in the broad phenomena of commu- 
nities and nations ? 

Christianity, when entering very disproportionately into any 
community, has often been counteracted by. opposing influences 
acting from without, and often adulterated by the intrusion of 
foreign elements ; some philosophical, as the new Platonism of 
the early church, and the Kationalism and Pantheism of the pre- 
sent day ; some traditional and hierarchical, as the Catholicism 
of the middle ages. Its sacred name has thus often been sacri- 
legiously ascribed to religious systems altogether alien to itself. 
Our argument however is — 

1st. That whenever the Christianity of the Bible is allowed 
free course, to that extent its influence has been wholly bene- 
ficial. 

2d. That this influence has, as an unquestionable historical 
fact, availed to raise every race in the exact proportion of their 
Christianity to an otherwise never attained level of intellectual, 
moral and political advancement. If we compare ancient Greece 
and Home with England or America ; modern Spain, Italy and 
Austria with Scotland ; the Waldenses with Koine of the Middle 
Ages ; the Moravians with the Parisians ; the Sandwich Islands 
and New Zealand with the gospel, with themselves before its ad- 
vent, the conclusion is inevitable. 

1st. That Bible Christianity alone furnishes a world embrac- 



EARLY SUCCESSES. 63 

ing civilization, .which adapted to man as man re-connects in one 
system the scattered branches of the human family. 

2d. That only under its light has ever been discovered among 
men (1), a rational natural theology, or (2), a true philosophy 
whether physical or psychological. 

3d. That under its direct influence, and under its reign alone, 
have (1), the masses of the people been raised, and general educa- 
tion diffused, (2), woman been respected and elevated to her true 
position and influence, and (3), generally religious and civil 
liberty realized upon a practical conservative basis. 

4th. That precisely in proportion to its influence have the 
morals of every community, or generation, been more pure, and 
the active fruits of that holy love which is the basis of all moral- 
ity more abundant ; as witness the provision made for the relief 
of all suffering, and the elevation of all classes of the degraded. 

Hence we conclude, 1st. No imposture could have accomplished 
such uniform good. 2d. No system, merely human, could have 
achieved results so constant, so far-reaching and profound. 

19. What argument for the truth of Christianity may be 
drawn from the history of its early successes ? 

Our argument is that Christianity extended itself over the 
Roman empire, under circumstances and by means unparalleled 
in the propagation of any other religion, and such as necessitates 
upon our part the belief in the presence of a supernatural agency. 

The facts are, 1st. Christianity was bitterly repudiated and 
persecuted by the Jews among whom it originated, and to whose 
Scriptures it appealed. 2d. Its first teachers were Jews, the most 
universally abominated race in the empire, and for the most part 
illiterate men. 3d. It appealed to multitudes of witnesses for the 
truth of many open facts, which if untrue could easily have been 
disproved. 4th. It condemned absolutely every other religion, 
and refused to be assimilated to the cosmopolitan religion of im- 
perial Rome. 5th. It opposed the reigning philosophies. 6th. It 
humbled human pride, laid imperative restraint upon the govern- 
ing passions of the human heart, and taught prominently the 
moral excellence of virtues which were despised as weaknesses by 
the heathen moralists. 7th. From the first it settled and fought 
its way in the greatest centers of the world's philosophy and re- 



64 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

finement, as Antioch, Alexandria, Athens, Corinth and Kome, 
and here it achieved its victories during the Augustan and imme- 
diately succeeding age. 8th. It was for three hundred years sub- 
ject to a persecution, at the hands both of the people and the 
government, universal, protracted and intense. 9th. It achieved 
its success only by means of the instrumentality of testimony, 
argument, example and persuasion. 

Nevertheless, the "little flock" became, soon after the ascension 
five thousand, Acts, iv. 4, and increased continuously by multi- 
tudes, Acts, v. 14. The heathen writers Tacitus and Pliny tes- 
tify to the rapid progress of this religion during the first, and 
Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen during the second and the 
first part of the third century. So much so that the conversion 
of Constantine during the first part of the fourth century was 
politic, even if it was sincere, as the mass of the intelligence, 
worth and wealth of the empire had passed over to Christianity 
before him. — Paley's Ev., Part II., chap, ix., sec. 1. 

20. How does Gibbon attempt to destroy the force of this ar- 
gument in the fifteenth chapter of his history ? 

Without denying the presence of any supernatural element, 
he covertly insinuates that the early successes of Christianity may 
be adequately accounted for by five secondary causes. 1st. " The 
inflexible, or if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of 
the Christians." 2d. " The doctrine of a future life, improved by 
every additional circumstance which could give weight and effici- 
ency to that important truth." 3d. " The miraculous powers as- 
cribed to the primitive church." 4th. " The pure and austere 
morals of the Christians." 5th. " The union and discipline of 
the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent 
state in the midst of the Koman empire." 

This is a very superficial view of the matter. As to the 
" 1st." pretended secondary cause above quoted, it is itself the 
effect that needs to be accounted for. In the face of contempt 
and death it did not produce itself. 

As to the " 2d" cause cited we answer (1.) that this doctrine 
could have produced no effect until it was believed, and the be- 
lief of men in it is the very effect to be accounted for. (2.) The 



EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT AND OBLIGING. 65 

doctrine of future torments has not, in modern experience, been 
found attractive to wicked men. 

As to the " 3d" cause we answer, (1.) if the miracles were 
real, then Christianity is from God. (3.) If false, they certainly 
would rather have betrayed than advanced the imposture. 

As to the "4th" cause, the superior morality of Christians, 
we admit the fact. 

As to the " 5th" cause, we answer (1.) that this federative 
union among Christians could not exist until after the previous 
universal extension of their religion. (2.) That it did not exist 
until the close of the second century ; and (3.) before Constantine 
it was only the union in danger of a despised and persecuted sect. — 
See Dr. M. D. Hoge's University Lecture. 

21. Does the ivliole of the foregoing evidence in vindication 
of Christianity amount to a demonstration ? 

This evidence, when fully brought out and applied, has availed 
in time past to repel the just force of every infidel objection, and 
to render invincible the faith of many of the most powerful and 
learnedly informed intellects among men. It is adapted to reach 
and influence the minds of all classes of men ; it addresses itself 
to every department of human nature, to the reason, the emotions, 
the conscience, and it justifies itself by experience ; in its full- 
ness it renders all unbelief sin, and sets intelligent faith within 
impregnable bulwarks. It is not, however, of the nature of 
mathematical demonstration. The evidence being that of testi- 
mony, of the moral power of truth, and of the practical verifica- 
tion of experience, of course prejudice, moral obliquity, refusal to 
apply the test of experience, must all prevent the evidence from 
producing conviction. Faith must be free, not mechanically co- 
erced. Besides, many difficulties and absolutely insolvable enig- 
mas attend this subject, because of the natural insurmountable 
limits of human thought. The evidences of Christianity thus 
constitute a considerable element in man's present probation, and 
a very adequate test of moral character. 

22. What, in fact, is the principal class of evidence to which 
the Scriptures appeal, and upon ivhich the faith of the majority 
of believers rests ? 

5 



66 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

» 

I. The moral evidence inherent in the truth and in the person 
of Jesus. — See questions 15 and 16. 

II. The sanctifying effect of Christianity, as exhibited in the 
persons of Christian acquaintances. 

III. The personal experience of the spiritual power of Chris- 
tianity. — See question 17. 

This kind of evidence stands first in practical importance, be- 
cause, 

1st. The Scriptures command faith (1.), as soon as the Bible 
is opened upon intrinsic evidence, (2.) of all men, without excep- 
tion, even the most ignorant. 

2d. The Scriptures make belief a moral duty and unbelief a 
sin, Mark xvi., 14. 

3d. They declare that unbelief does not arise from excusable 
weakness of the reason, but from an " evil heart," Hebrews iii., 12. 

4th. A faith resting upon such grounds is more certain and 
stable than any other, as the noble army of martyrs witness. 

5th. A faith founded upon moral and spiritual evidence sur- 
passes all others in its power to purify the heart and transform 
the character. 



CHAPTER IV. 

INSPIRATION. 

The Christian religion having been proved to be from God, 
it remains to inquire what is the infallible source through which 
we may derive the knowledge of what Christianity really is. The 
Protestant answer to this question is, that the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of 
God, are the only and all-sufficient rule of faith and judge of 
controversies. "We will now establish the first of these propo- 
sitions. 

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are 
inspired, and therefore infallible. 

1. What, in general terms, is the nature of inspiration ? 

Inspiration is that divine influence which, accompanying the 
sacred writers equally in all they wrote, secured the infallible 
truth of their writings in every part, both in idea and expression, 
and determined the selection and distribution of their material 
according to the divine purpose. The nature of this influence, 
just as the nature of the divine operation upon the human soul 
in providence, in regeneration, or in sanctification, is of course 
entirely inscrutable. The result of this influence, however, is both 
plain and certain, viz., to render their writings an infallible rule 
of faith and practice. — See Dr. Hodge's article on Inspiration, 
Bib. Rep., October 1857. 

2. In what respects do inspiration and revelation differ ? 

Revelation properly signifies the supernatural communication 
of any truth not before known. This revelation may be made 
either immediately to the mind of the recipient, or mediately 
through words, signs, or vision, or through the intervention of an 



68 INSPIRATION. 

inspired prophet. Inspiration, on the other hand, signifies sim- 
ply that divine influence which renders a writer or speaker infal- 
lible in communicating truth, whether previously known or not. 
Some men have received revelations who were not inspired to 
communicate them, e. g. y Abraham. Nearly all the sacred writers 
were inspired to communicate with infallible accuracy much that 
they knew by natural means, such as historical facts; much that 
they reached by the natural use of their faculties, such as logical 
deduction, and much that was suggested by their own natural 
affections. 

Inspiration, therefore, while it controlled the writer, so that 
all he wrote was infallibly true, and to the very purpose for which 
God designed it, yet left him free in the exercise of his natural 
faculties, and to the use of materials drawn from different sources, 
both natural and supernatural. On the other hand, revelation 
supernaturally conveyed to the writer only that knowledge which, 
being unknown to him, was yet necessary to complete the design 
of God in his writing. This revelation was effected in different 
ways, as by mental suggestion or visions, or audible voices, etc. 
Sometimes the revelation was made to the Writer's conscious 
intelligence, and then he was inspired to transmit an infallible 
record of it. Sometimes the writer was used by the Holy Spirit as 
a mere instrument in executing an infallible record of that which 
to himself conveyed no intelligible sense, e .g. } some of the pro- 
phesies.— 1 Pet. i., 10-12. 

3. How do inspiration and spiritual illumination differ ? 

Spiritual illumination is an essential element in the sanctify- 
ing work of the Holy Spirit common to all true Christians. It 
never leads to the knowledge of new truth, but only to the per- 
sonal discernment of the spiritual beauty and power of truth 
already revealed in the Scriptures. 

Inspiration is a special influence of the Holy Spirit peculiar 
to the prophets and apostles, and attending them only in the 
exercise of their functions as accredited teachers. * Most of them 
were the subjects both of inspiration aud spiritual illumination. 
Some, as Balaam, being unregenerate were inspired, though des- 
titute of spiritual illumination. 



ITS DEFINITION. 69 

4. State what is meant by theological writers by the inspira- 
tion " of superintendence" " of elevation," " o/* direction," and 
u of suggestion" 

Certain writers on this subject, confounding the distinction 
between inspiration and revelation, and using the former term to 
express the whole divine influence of which the sacred writers 
were the subjects, first, in knowing the truth, second, in writing- 
it, necessarily distinguish between different degrees of inspiration 
in order to accommodate their theory to the facts of the case. 
Because, first, some of the contents of Scripture evidently might 
be known without supernatural aid, while much more as evidently 
could not ; second, the different writers exercised their natural 
faculties, and carried their individual peculiarities of thought, 
feeling, and manner into their writings. 

By the " inspiration of superintendance," these writers meant 
precisely what we have above given as the definition of inspira- 
tion. By the " inspiration of elevation," they meant that divine 
influence which exalted their natural faculties to a degree of 
energy otherwise unattainable. 

By the " inspiration of direction," they meant that divine in- 
fluence which guided the writers in the selection and disposition 
of their material. 

By the " inspiration of suggestion," they meant that divine 
influence which directly suggested to their minds new, and other- 
wise unattainable truth. 

5. What objections may be fairly made to these distinctions ? 

1st. These distinctions spring from a prior failure to distin- 
guish between revelation the frequent, and inspiration the con- 
stant phenomenon presented by Scripture ; the one furnishing the 
material when not otherwise attainable, the other guiding the 
writer at every point, (1.) in securing the infallible truth of all he 
writes ; and (2.) in the selection and distribution of his material. 

2d. It is injurious to distinguish between different degrees of 
inspiration, as if the several portions of the Scriptures were in 
different degrees God's word, while in truth the whole is equally 
and absolutely so. 

6. What are the different views which have been maintained 
as to the extent of inspiration ? 



70 INSPIRATION. 

1st. Some infidels, as Strauss, have maintained that the Scrip- 
tures are merely a collection of pre-historical myths. 

2d. Some Socinians and extreme rationalists, as represented by 
Dr. Priestly, admit that the sacred writers were honest men, and 
competent witnesses as to the main facts which they record, but, for 
the rest, fallible men, as liable to error in opinion and fact as others. 

3d. Others have confined the attribute of infallibility to the 
personal teachings of Christ, regarding the Apostles as highly 
competent though fallible reporters. 

4th. Many, as the Quakers, and Dr. Arnold of Rugby, regard 
the inspiration of the sacred writers as only a preeminent degree 
of that spiritual illumination which in a less degree is common 
to all Christians. 

5th. Some, as Michaelis, admit that the inspiration of the 
sacred writers rendered them infallible in teaching religious and 
moral truth only, while, as to external facts of history, and opin- 
ions as to science they were liable to err. 

6th. Many transcendental philosophers of the present day, as 
represented by Morell in his " Philosophy of Religion," hold that 
the inspiration of the sacred writers was nothing more than an 
exaltation of their " intuitional consciousness," i. e., that this di- 
vine assistance took the place in them of great genius and of great 
goodness, and effected nothing more than the best results of the 
highest exercise of their own faculties. And thus their writings 
have no other authority over us than that which their words sev- 
erally manifest to our consciousness, as inherent in themselves, as 
we see and feel them to be preeminently wise and good. 

7th. The true doctrine is that their inspiration was plenary,, and 
their writings in every part infallible truth. — Bib. Rep., October, 
1857, Dr. T. V. Moore's Univ. Lect., and Gaussen on Inspiration. 

7. What is meant by "plenary inspiration V 

A divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end. The 
end in this case secured is the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures 
in every part, as a record of fact and doctrine both in thought 
and verbal expression. So that although they come to us through 
the instrumentality of the minds, hearts, imaginations, consciences 
and wills of men, they are nevertheless in the strictest sense the 
word of God. 



EXTENDS TO THE WORDS. 71 

8. On what ground is it held that the sacred writers were in- 
spired as historians as ivell as in their character of religious 
teachers ? 

1st. The two elements are inseparable in Scripture. Keligion 
is everywhere based upon and illustrated by the facts of history. 
Imperfection in one respect would invalidate the authority of its 
teaching in every department. 

2d. The Scriptures themselves claim to be the word of God as 
a whole (2 Timothy hi., 16), and never hint at any distinction 
as to the different degrees of authority with which their several 
portions are clothed. 

3d. The perfect historical accuracy and agreement of so many 
authors, of such various ages and nations, which we find in the 
Scriptures, itself demands the assignment of a supernatural cause. 

9 . On what grounds is it assumed that their inspiration ex- 
tended to their language as well as to their thoughts ? 

The doctrine is, that while the sacred writers thought and 
wrote in the free exercise of all their powers, nevertheless God ex- 
erted such a constant influence over them that, 1st, they were al- 
ways furnished, naturally or supernaturally, with the material 
necessary ; 2d, infallibly guided in its selection and distribution ; 
and, 3d, so directed that they always wrote pure truth in infalli- 
bly correct language. 

That this influence did extend to the words appears, 1st, from 
the very design of inspiration, which is, not to secure the infalli- 
ble correctness of the opinions of the inspired men themselves 
(Paul and Peter differed, Gal. ii., 11, and sometimes the prophet 
knew not what he wrote), but to secure an infallible record of the 
truth. But a record consists of language. 

2d. Men think in words, and the more definitely they think 
the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an ex- 
actly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought can 
not be secured or preserved independently of an infallible verbal 
rendering. 

3d. The Scriptures affirm this fact, 1 Cor. ii., 13 ; 1 Thess. 
ii., 13. 

4th. The New Testament writers, while quoting from the 



72 INSPIRATION. 

Old Testament for purposes of argument, often base their argu- 
ment upon the very words used, thus ascribing authority to the 
word as well as the thought. — Matt, xxii., 32, and Ex. iii., 6, 16 ; 
Matt, xxii., 45, and Psalms ex., 1 ; Gal. iii., 16, and Gen. xvii., 7. 

10. What are the sources of our knowledge that the Scrip- 
tures are inspired ? 



The only possible sources of information on this subject are, 
of course, the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves ; the claims 
they present, and their intrinsic character taken in connection 
with the evidences by which they are accredited. 

11. How can the propriety of proving the inspiration of a 
booh by the assertions of its author be vindicated ? 

1st. Christ, the prophets and apostles claim to be inspired, and 
that their word should be received as the word of God. The "evi- 
dences" above detailed prove them to be divinely commissioned 
teachers. The denial of inspiration logically involves the rejec- 
tion of Christianity. 

2d. The Bible, like every other book, bears internal evidence 
of the attributes of its author. The known attributes of human 
nature can not account for the plain phenomena of the Scriptures. 
A divine influence must be inferred from the facts. If partially 
divine, they must be all whatsoever they claim to be. 

12. What d priori argument in favor of the inspiration of 
the Scriptures may be drawn from the necessity of the case, the 
fact of a divine revelation being presumed ? 

The very office of a supernatural revelation is to lead men to 
an adequate and certain knowledge of God and his will, other- 
wise unattainable to them. But an infallible record is the only 
channel through which a certain knowledge of a divine revelation, 
made by God to the men of one age and nation, can be conveyed 
to men of all ages and nations. Without inspiration the opin- 
ions of Paul would be of less authority than the opinions of Lu- 
ther would be with an inspired Bible. And if the record be not 
inspired, the revelation as it comes down to us would not be more 
certain than the unassisted conclusions of reason. 



PROVED BY MIRACLES. 73 

13. How may the inspiration of the apostles be fairly inferred 
from the fact that they ivr ought miracles ? 

A miracle is a divine sign (orjfiecov) accrediting the person to 
whom the power is delegated as a divinely commissioned agent, 
Matt, xvi., 1, 4 ; Acts xiv., 3 ; Heb. ii., 4. This divine testimony 
not only encourages, but absolutely renders belief obligatory. 
Where the sign is God commands us to believe. But he could 
not unconditionally command us to believe any other than un- 
mixed truth infallibly conveyed. 

14. How may it be shown that the gift of inspiration was 
promised to the apostles ? 

Matt, x., 19 ; Luke xii., 12 ; John xiv., 26 ; xv., 26, 27 ; 
xvi., 13 ; Matt, xxviii., 19, 20 ; John xiii., 20. 

15. In what several ways did they claim to have possession 
of the Spirit ? 

They claimed — 

1st. To have the Spirit in fulfillment of the promise of 
Christ. — Acts ii., 33 ; iv., 8 ; xiii., 2-4 ; xv., 28 ; xxi. ? 11 ; 1 
Thes. i., 5. 

2d. To speak as the prophets of God. — 1 Cor. iv., 1 ; ix., 17; 
2 Cor. v., 19 ; 1 Thes. iv., 8. 

3d. To speak with plenary authority. — 1 Cor. ii. 13 ; 1 Thes. 
ii. 13 ; 1 John iv. 6 ; Gal. i., 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. xiii., 2, 3, 4. They 
class their writings on a level with the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures. — 2 Pet. iii., 16 ; 1 Thess. v., 27 ; Col. iv., 16 ; Eev. ii., 
7. — Dr. Hodge. 

16. How was their claim confirmed ? 

1st. By their holy, simple, temperate yet heroic lives. 

2d* By the holiness of the doctrine they taught, and its spiri- 
tual power, as attested by its effect upon communities and indi- 
viduals. 

3d. By the miracles they wrought. — Heb. ii., 4; Acts xiv., 3; 
Mark xvi., 20. 

4th. All these testimonies are accredited to us not only by 
their own writings, but also by the uniform testimony of the early 
Christians, their cotemporaries, and their immediate successors. 



74 INSPIRATION. 

17. Show that the writers of the Old Testament claim to be 
inspired ? 

1st. Moses claimed that he wrote a part at least of the Pen- 
tateuch by divine command. — Deut. xxxi., 19-22 ; xxxiv.. 10 ; 
Num. xvi., 28, 29. David claimed it. — 2 Sam. xxiii., 2, 

2d. As a characteristic fact, the Old Testament writers speak 
not in their own name, but preface their messages with, " Thus 
saith the Lord," " The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it/'etc. — 
Jer. ix., 12 ; xiii., 13 ; xxx., 4 ; Isa. viii., 1 ; xxxiii., 10 ; Mic. 
iv., 4 ; Amos iii., 1 ; Deut. xviii., 21, 22 ; 1 Kings xxi., 28 ; 1 
Chron. xvii., 3.— Dr. Hodge. 

18. Hoio was their claim confirmed ? 

1st. Their claim was confirmed to their cotemporaries by the 
miracles they wrought, by the fulfillment of many of their pre- 
dictions, (Num. xvi., 28, 29), by the holiness of their lives, the 
moral and spiritual perfection of their doctrine, and the practical 
adaptation of the religious system they revealed to the urgent 
wants of men. 

2d. Their claim is confirmed to us principally, (1.) By the 
remarkable fulfillment, in far subsequent ages, of many of their 
prophesies. (2.) By the evident relation of the symbolical reli- 
gion which they promulgated to the facts and doctrines of Chris- 
tianity, proving a divine preadjustment of the type to the anti- 
type. (3.) By the endorsation of Christ and his apostles. 

19. What are the formulas by ivhich quotations from the Old 
Testament are introduced into the New, and how do these forms 
of expression prove the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures ? 

" The Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii., 7. " The Holy Ghost this 
signifying," Heb. ix., 8. " God saith," Acts ii., 17, and Isa. xliv., 
3 ; 1 Cor. ix., 9, 10, and Deut. xxv., 4. "The Scriptures saith," 
Eom. iv., 3 ; Gal. iv., 30. "It is written," Luke xviii., 31; xxi., 
22 ; John ii., 17 ; xx., 31. " The Lord by the mouth of his ser- 
vant David says," Acts iv., 25, and Ps. ii., 1, 2. " The Lord 
limiteth in David a certain day, saying," Heb. iv., 7; Ps. xcv., 7. 
"David in spirit says," Matt, xxii., 43, and Ps. ex., 1. 

Thus these Old Testament writings are what God saith, what 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75 

God saith by David, etc., and are quoted as the authoritative 
basis for conclusive argumentation, therefore they must have been 
inspired. 

20. How may the inspiration of the Old Testament writers be 
proved by the express declarations of the New Testament ? 

Luke L, 70 ; Heb. i., 1 ; 2 Tim. iii., 16 ; 1 Pet. i., 10-12 ; 2 
Pet. i., 21. 

21. What is the argument on this subject drawn from the 
manner in which Christ and his apostles argue from the Old 
Testament as of final authority ? 

Christ constantly quotes the old Testament, Matt, xxi., 13 ; 
xxii., 43. He declares that it can not be falsified, John vii., 23 ; 
x., 35 ; that the whole law must be fulfilled, Matt, v., 18 ; and 
all things also foretold concerning himself " in Moses, the prophets, 
and the psalms/' Luke xxiv., 44. The apostles habitually quote 
the Old Testament in the same manner, " That it might be ful- 
filled which was written, 7 ' is with them a characteristic formula, 
Matt, i., 22 ; ii., 15, 17, 23 ; John xii., 38 ; xv., 25, etc. They 
all appeal to the words of Scripture as of final authority. This 
certainly proves infallibility. 

22. What is the objection to the doctrine of inspiration drawn 
from the diversity of style and manner observable among the sev- 
eral sacred writings^ and the answer to it ? 

It is an acknowledged fact that all of the national and sec- 
tional peculiarities and individual qualities and habits of each of 
the sacred writers appear in his work, because his natural facul- 
ties were freely exercised after their kind in its production. Some 
have argued from this fact that it is absurd to believe that those 
faculties could at the same time, and with reference to the same 
object, have been subject to any determinating divine influence. 

However it may be with the Arminian, the Calvinist can find 
no special difficulty here. "We can not understand how the infin- 
ite Spirit acts upon the finite spirit in providence or in grace. 
The case of inspiration is so far forth precisely analogous. God 
works by means, from the beginning pre-adjusting the means to 
the end, and then concurrently directing them while they freely 



76 INSPIKATION. 

act to that end. God surely might as easily guide the free souls 
of men in spontaneously producing an infallible Scripture, as in 
spontaneously realizing in act the events foreordained in his eter- 
nal decree. 

23. What is the objection to this doctrine drawn from the free 
manner in which the New Testament writers quote those of the 
Old Testament, and the answer to that objection ? 

In a majority of instances the New Testament writers quote 
those of the Old Testament with perfect verbal accuracy. Some- 
times they quote the Septuagint version, when it conforms to the 
Hebrew ; at others they substitute a new version ; and at other 
times again they adhere to the Septuagint, when it differs from the 
Hebrew. In a number of instances, which however are compara- 
tively few, their quotations from the Old Testament are made 
very freely, and in apparent accommodation of the literal sense. 

nationalistic interpreters have argued from this last class of 
quotations that it is impossible that both the Old Testament 
writer quoted from, and the New Testament writer quoting could 
have been the subjects of plenary inspiration, because, say they, if 
the ipsissima verba were infallible in the first instance, an infal- 
lible writer would have transferred them unchanged. But surely 
if a human author may quote himself freely, changing the expres- 
sion, and giving a new turn to his thought in order to adapt it 
the more perspicuously to his present purpose, the Holy Spirit 
may take the same liberty with his own. The same Spirit that 
rendered the Old Testament writers infallible in writing only pure 
truth, in the very form that suited his purpose then, has rendered 
the New Testament writers infallible in so using the old mate- 
rials, that while they elicit a new sense, they teach only the truth, 
the very truth moreover contemplated in the mind of God from 
the beginning, and they teach it with divine authority. — See Fair- 
bairn's Herm. Manual, Part III. Each instance of such quota- 
tion should be examined in detail, as Dr. Fairbairn has done. 

24. Upon what principles are we to answer the objections 
founded upon the alleged discrepances between the sacred writers, 
and upon their alleged inaccuracies in matters of science ? 

If either of these objections were founded on facts, it would 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 77 

clearly disprove the doctrine we maintain. That neither of them 
is founded on fact can be shown only by a detailed examination 
of each instance alleged. As a general principle it is evident — 

1st. With regard to apparent discrepancies between the sacred 
writers, that nothing presents any difficulty short of a clear and 
direct contradiction. Different writers niay, of course, with per- 
fect accuracy represent different details of the same occurrence, or 
different views of the same fact, and different elements and rela- 
tions of the same great doctrine, as may best suit their several 
designs. Instead of this course proving inconsistency, it is pre- 
cisely God's plan for bringing the whole truth most fully and 
clearly to our knowledge. 

2d. With respect to apparent inaccuracies in matters of science, 
that the sacred writers having for their design to teach moral and 
religious truth, and not physical science, use on all such subjects 
the common language of their cotemporaries, always speaking of 
natural phenomena as they appear, and not as they really are. 
And yet revelation does not present one single positive statement 
which is not consistent with all the facts known to men, in any 
department of nature. In the progress of science, human ignor- 
ance and premature generalization have constantly presented diffi- 
culties in the reconciliation of the word of Grod with man's theory 
of his works. The advance of perfected knowledge has uniformly 
removed the difficulty. 



CHAPTER V. 



THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 



The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ; hav- 
ing BEEN GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, ARE THE ALL-SUFFI- 
CIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND JUDGE OF 

controversies. (This chapter is compiled from Dr. Hodge's 
unpublished Lectures on the Church.) 

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only 
infallible rule of faith and practice ? 

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. 
Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings 
and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during 
the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his 
will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what 
duties he requires of us. 

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible 
rule of faith and practice ? 

The Komish theory is that the complete rule of faith and 
practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching 
of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the church. 
Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth 
not contained in the Scriptures ; and, 2d, to interpret Scripture. 
The church being the divinely constituted depository and judge 
of both Scripture and tradition. — Decrees of Council of Trent, 
Session IV, and Dens Theo., Tom. II., N. 80 & 81. 

3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority 
of tradition ? By what criterion do they distinguish true tra- 
ditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the au- 
thority of the traditions they receive ? 



TRADITION. 79 

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are (1.) Scripture 
authorizes it, 2 Thess. ii., xv ; iii., 6. (2.) The early fathers 
asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. 
(3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly 
ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. 
The Scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence 
of tradition, and the stream can not rise higher than its source. 
(4.) The necessity of the case, a, Scripture is obscure, needs 
tradition as its interpreter, b, Scripture is incomplete as a rule 
of faith and practice ; since there are many doctrines and institu- 
tions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tra- 
dition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. Every state 
recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law. 

2d. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and 
false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists con- 
fine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. 
The Eomanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which 
is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, 
or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever. 

3d. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. 
(1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to 
the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church 
expressed by Catholic consent. 

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical 
tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown ? 

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral 
tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited, 
(2 Thess. ii., 15, and iii., 6,) signifies all his instructions, oral and 
written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed 
down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the 
Eomanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt, xv., 3, 6 ; 
Mark vii., 7. 

2d. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement 
Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Be- 
cause Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, 
definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from 
its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated 
with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below 



80 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PEACTICE. 

(question 20) , the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately 
upon tradition. 

3d. The whole ground upon which Komanists base the au- 
thority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is 
invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three 
hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that 
contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions. They are 
thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the 
fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in 
the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown be- 
low (question 18.) 

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. 
Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not re- 
ceive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions 
unknown to the ancients. 

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, 
the sacrifice of the Mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to 
Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of 
Scripture. A house divided against itself can not stand. 

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of 
faith ? 

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity, and acces- 
sibility. 

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in 
favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith ? 

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and 
command faith and obedience. 

2d. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scrip- 
tures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith 
whatsoever. — Luke xvi., 29 ; x. ? 26 ; John v., 39 ; Kom. iv., 3 ; 
2 Tim. iii., 15. 

3d. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, 
even apostolic teaching, to this test. — Acts xvii., 11 ; see also 
Isa. viii., 16. 

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and pervert- 
ing the Scriptures. — Matt, xv., 7-9 ; Mark vii., 5-8 ; see also 
Kev. xxii., 18, 19, and Deut. iv., 2 ; xii., 32 ; Josh, i., 7. 



SCRIPTURES COMPLETE. 81 

7. In ivhat sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of 
faith asserted ? 

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation 
which God has ever made to man, bnt that their contents are the 
only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, 
and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guid- 
ance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and 
excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions. 

8. How may this completeness be proved from the design of 
Scripture $ 

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is neces- 
sary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, 
as tradition is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it. 
" Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred 
writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of 
them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of 
any other rule. — John xx., 31 ; 2 Tim. iii., 15-17. 

9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved I 

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so 
they have always been practically found to be such by the true 
spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and 
harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary prin- 
ciples for the government of the private lives of Christians, in 
every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the adminis- 
tration of the affairs of his kingdom ; and they repell all pre- 
tended traditions and priestly innovations. 

10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny 
the perspicuity of Scripture ? 

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the 
Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of 
them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they 
affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspi- 
cuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly 
enigmatical until explained by the event. But they do affirm 
that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly 

6 



82 THE EULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This 
much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on 
the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and 
critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian 
church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpreta- 
tion of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the 
system therein taught. 

Protestants affirm and Eomanists deny that private and un- 
learned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture 
for themselves. 

11. How can the perspicuity of Scripture be proved from the 
fact that it is a law and a message ? 

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, 
from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity 
upon the same principle. It professes to be (1.) a law to be 
obeyed ; (2.) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received 
by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To 
suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of com- 
manding and teaching, is to charge God with dealing with us in 
a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel. 

12. In ivhat passages is their perspicuity asserted ? 

Ps. xix., 7, 8 ; cxix., 105, 130 ; 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; 2 Pet. i., 18, 
19 ; Hab. ii., 2 ; 2 Tim. iii., 15, 17. 

13. By what other arguments may this point be established ? 

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all 
men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as such. — 
Deut. vi., 4-9 ; Luke i., 3 ; Kom. L, 7 ; 1 Cor. i., 2 ; 2 Cor. i., 
1 ; iv., 2 ; Gal. i, 2 ; Eph. i., 1 ; Phil, i., 1 ; Col. i., 2 ; James 
i., 1 ; 1 Peter i., 1 ; 2 Peter i., 1 ; 1 John ii., 12, 14 ; Jude L, 1 ; 
Kev. i., 3, 4; ii., 7. The only exceptions are the epistles to 
Timothy and Titus. 

2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search 
the Scriptures. — 2 Tim. iii., 15, 17 ; Acts xvii., 11 ; John v., 39. 

3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the 
light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property 



ROMISH DOCTRINE. 83 

in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult to the un- 
derstanding of the whole world of Bible readers. 

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all 
circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every 
age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open 
Scriptures. 

14. What ivas the third quality required to constitute the 
Scriptures the sufficient ride of faith and practice ? 

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the preeminent 
characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is 
in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pre- 
tended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this mat- 
ter is simply to give all currency to the word of God. 

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the 
judge as well as the ride in questions of faith ? 

" A rule is a standard of judgment ; a judge is the expounder 
and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases/' The 
Protestant doctrine is — 

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith 
and practice. 

2d. (1.) Negatively. That there is no body of men who are 
either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or to 
apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a 
sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians. (2.) Pos- 
sitively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, 
and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious 
help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 
John ii., 20-27), by each individual for himself, with the assistance, 
though not by the authority of his fellow Christians. Creeds and 
confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess 
them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly 
what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach. 

16. What is the Romish doctrine as to the authority of the 
church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the au- 
thoritative judge of all controversies ? 

The Komish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infalli- 



84 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. 

"ble in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely 
authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her 
office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her 
inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting 
the original revelation communicated through the apostles. 

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines, 1st, What 
is Scripture ? 2d. What is genuine tradition ? 3d. What is the 
true sense of Scripture and tradition, and what is the true appli- 
cation of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief 
or practice. 

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official 
capacity, and in the bishops as a body ; as when assembled in 
general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of 
pope or council. — -Decrees of Council of Trent, Session IV., Deus 
Theo., N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. Bellarmine, Lib. III., de 
eccles., cap. xiv., and Lib. II., de concil., cap. ii. 

17. By toliat arguments do tliey seek to establish tliis authority ? 

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apos- 
tles, and to their official successors, securing their infallibility, 
and consequent authority. — Matt, xvi., 18 ; xviii., 18-20 ; Luke 
xxiv., 47-49 ; John xvi., 13 ; xx., 23. 

2d. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the 
world. — Matt, xxviii., 19, 20 ; Luke x., 16, etc. 

3d. The church is declared to be " the pillar and ground of 
the truth," and it is affirmed that " the gates of hell shall never 
prevail against her." 

4th. To the churclr is granted power to bind and loose, and 
he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. — 
Matt, xvi., 19 ; xviii., 15-18. 

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth 
and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to 
do so.— 2 Thes. iii., 6 : Eom. xvi., 17 ; 2 John 10. 

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an 
ever-living, visible and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and 
Judge. 

7th. From universal analogy every community among men 
has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would 
be of no value without the other. 



ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED, 85 

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, 
which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true 
church. 

18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church 
be shown to be utterly baseless ? 

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous 
can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, 
and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason 
at once against God and the human race. 

2d. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to 
preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of 
them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost prom- 
ised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely 
from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the 
faittt! 

3d. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were 
addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the 
body of true believers. Compare John xx., 23 with Luke xxiv., 
33, 47, 48, 49, and 1 John ii., 20, 27. 

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the pre- 
cious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, 
visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a 
perpetual line of apostles. For (1.) the word church. {zKKXr\oia^) 
is a collective term, embracing the effectually called (jiXr]roL 7 ) or 
regenerated. — Kom. i., 7 ; viii., 28 ; 1 Cor., i., 2 ; Jude i. ; Rev. 
xvii., 14 ; also Rom. ix., 24 ; 1 Cor. vii., 18-24 ; Gal. i., 15 ; 2 
Tim. i., 9 ; Heb. ix., 15 ; 1 Pet. ii., 9 ; v., 10 ; Eph. i., 18 ; 2 
Pet. i., 10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it 
to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such. — 
Eph. v., 27 ; 1 Pet, ii, 5 ; John x., 27 ; Col. i., 18, 24. (3.) 
The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations 
explain that phrase as equivalent to " the called/' " the saints/' 
"all true worshipers of God '" witness the salutations of 1st 
and 2d Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2d Peter and 
Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the 
true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles. — 
1 Cor. i., 30 ; iii., 16 ; vi., 11, 19 ; Eph. ii., 3-8, and 19-22 ; 
1 Thes. v., 4, 5 ; 2 Thes. ii. ; 13 ; Col. i, 21 ; ii., 10 ; • 1 Pet. ii., 9. 



86 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. 

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There 
is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) 
While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices 
of presbyter and deacon, (1 Tim. iii., 1-13,) there are no directions 
given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is per- 
fect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in 
the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name 
and the thing ceased. (4.) None ever claiming to be one of their 
successors have possessed the " signs of an apostle." — 2 Cor. xii., 
12 ; 1 Cor. ix., 1 ; Gal. L, 1, 12 ; Acts i. ; 21, 22. 

6 th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, 
is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scrip- 
ture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the 
bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for 
the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since 
their universal judgment never has been and never can be impar- 
tially collected and pronounced. 

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self-con- 
sistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been 
self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doc- 
trines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infalli- 
bility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a sys- 
tem plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense ; 
witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the Mass, penance, of 
works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Eome hides 
the Scriptures from the people. 

8th. If this Komish system be true then genuine spiritual re- 
ligion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the 
world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the 
reverse. If, therefore, we admit that the Komish system is true, 
we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself, 
viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, 
and the witness of the Holy Ghost. 

19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scrip- 
tures are the final judge of controversies be established ? 

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, 
and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is 
to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts : — 



EOMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 87 

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13. 

2d. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, 
question 13. 

3d. All Christians are commanded to search the Scriptures, 
and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers. — 
John v., 39 ; Acts xvii., 11 ; Gal. i., 8 ; 2 Cor. iv., 2 ; 1 These, 
v., 21 ; 1 John iv., 1, 2. 

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and inter- 
preter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 
xx., 23 with Luke xxiv., 47-49 ; 1 John ii., 20, 27 ; Kom. viii., 
9 ; 1 Cor. iii., 16, 17. 

5th. Eeligion is essentially a personal matter. Each Chris- 
tian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on 
the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not 
on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could 
not be a moral act, nor could it " purify the heart." Faith derives 
its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately appre- 
hends on its own experimental evidence. — John xvii., 17, 19 ; 
James i., 18 ; 1 Pet. i., 22. 

20. What is the objection which the Bomanists make to this 
doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for 
believing that the Scriptures are the word of God ? 

Their objection is, that as we receive the Scriptures as the 
word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, 
our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in 
the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation 
of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount. 

This is absurd, for two reasons — 

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we 
receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the 
church, but (1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as 
is evident a from the nature of their doctrine, b from their mira- 
cles, c their prophecies, d our personal experience and observation 
of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we 
possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, a from 
internal evidence, b from historical testimony rendered by all 
competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it. 

2d. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the 



00 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. 

Scriptures to be from God, od the authority of the church's tes- 
timony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would 
be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogeni- 
ture of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the 
kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince. 

21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, 
derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Pro- 
testants, to be answered ? 

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Pro- 
testants is infallible, but only that when exercised in an humble, 
believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of 
essential truth. 

2d. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed 
by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as 
they do against Kome. But Bible Protestants, among all their 
circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon 
the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their hymns and 
devotional literature. 

3d. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure 
in applying faithfully the Protes-tant principles for which we 
contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their 
creed from the Bible. 

4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative 
utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most 
indefinite judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible inter- 
preter infinitely more than the Scriptures. 

22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well 
as the Protestant, necessarily throivs upon the people the obliga- 
tion of private judgment ? 

Is there a God ? Has he revealed himself ? Has he estab- 
lished a church ? Is that church an infallible teacher ? Is 
private judgment a blind leader ? Which of all pretended 
churches is the true one ? Every one of these questions evidently 
must be settled in the private judgment of the inquirer, before he 
can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to 
the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Eo- 
manists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures can 



ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 89 

not be understood, and address arguments to the private judg- 
ment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus 
basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argu- 
ment to prove is baseless. 

23. How may it he, proved that the people are far more com- 
petent to discover ivliat the Bible teaches than to decide, by the 
marks insisted upon by the Romanists, ichich is the true church ? 

The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which 
the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. 
These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the 
Pope ;) (2.) Holiness ; (3.) Catholicity ; (4.) Apostolicity, (in- 
volving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canoni- 
cally ordained bishops.) — Cat. of Council of Trent, Part I., Cap. 
10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these 
marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity 
upon the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself 
to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate 
marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet 
he can not rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for 
himself until that point is made clear. 

Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual 
power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of pri- 
vate judgment. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 

1. What is meant by the phrase, canon of Scripture ? 

The Greek word navuv, canon ; signifies primarily a reed, a 
staff, and then a measuring rod, then a rule of life and doctrine. — 
Gal. vi., 16 ; Phil, iii., 16. The canon of Holy Scripture is the 
entire word of God, consisting of all the books which holy men 
of old wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God, constitut- 
ing our complete and only rule of faith and practice. 

In order to determine this canon we have to prove, 1st. That 
the writings now recognized by Protestants as a part of God's 
word were, in fact, written by the inspired men whom they claim 
as their authors. 2d. That they have not been materially altered 
in their transmission to us. 3d. That no other extant writings 
have any valid claim to a place in the canon. 

2. What is meant by the genuineness and what by the authen- 
ticity of a booh ? 

A book is said to be genuine when it was really written by 
the person from whom it professes to have originated, otherwise 
it is spurious. A book is said to be authentic when its con- 
tents correspond with the truth on the subject concerning which 
it treats, otherwise it is fictitious. 

A novel, though always fictitious, is genuine when it bears 
the name of its real author. A history is both genuine and au- 
thentic, if it was written by its professed author, and if its narra- 
tions correspond with the facts as they occurred. 

3. What are the general principles upon ivhich Protestants 
settle the canon of Scripture, and wherein do they differ from 
those upon which Romanists proceed ? 






OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 91 

Protestants found their defense both of the genuineness and 
authenticity of the books severally constituting the canon of 
Scripture, as received by them, upon the same historical and criti- 
cal evidence that is uniformly relied upon by literary men, to 
establish the genuineness and authenticity of any ancient writings 
whatever. The only difference is, that in the case of the books 
constituting Holy Scripture, these evidences are preeminently 
numerous and conclusive. 

These evidences are generally, 1st. Internal, such as language, 
style, nature and mutual harmony of subjects. 2. External, such 
as testimony of cotemporaneous writers, the universal consent of 
cotemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from inde- 
pendent, credible sources. 

The Komish theologians, while referring to all these sources 
of evidence as of corroborating though subordinate value, yet 
maintain the plenary infallibility and authority of the church, 
upon which they found the credibility of Scripture, and of its 
several parts. 

4. When ivas the canon of the Old Testament completed ? 

When the five books of Moses were completed, they were de- 
posited in the ark of the covenant. — Deut. xxxi., 24-26. The 
writings of the subsequent prophets were accredited and generally 
received as they appeared, and were then preserved with pious 
care by the Jews. 

The uniform Jewish tradition is, that the collection and seal- 
ing of the Old Testament canon was accomplished by Ezra and a 
number of other holy men, who, after the building of the second 
temple, formed with him the " Great Synagogue," consisting of 
one hundred and twenty members, among whom, however, they 
enumerated many who lived in far separate ages. 

"The more probable conclusion is," says Dr. Alexander," "that 
Ezra (B. C. 457) began this work, and collected and arranged all 
the sacred books which belonged to the canon before his time, and 
that a succession of pious and learned men continued to pay at- 
tention to the canon," (the last prophetical writer being Malachi, 
B. C. 400,) " until the whole was completed about the time of 
Simon the Just," (B. C. 300,) who appears to have carried 



92 THE CANON OF SCRIPTUKE. 

down the genealogical lists to his own day. — Neh. xii., 22 ; 1 
Chron. iii., 19, etc. 

5. Give a synopsis of the argument by which the genuineness 
of the boohs constituting our received canon of the Old Testament 
is established ? 

1st. The canon of the Jewish Scriptures, as it existed in the 
time of our Lord and his apostles, was abundantly witnessed to 
by them as both genuine and authentic. (1.) Christ refers, to 
these writings as an infallible rule. — Mark xiv., 49 ; John v., 39; 
x., 35. He quotes them by their comprehensive and generally 
recognized title — the law, the prophets, the holy writings — the 
last division being sometimes called the Psalms, from the first book 
it contained. — Luke xxiv., 44. (2.) The apostles refer to these 
books as divine, and quote them as final authority. — 2 Tim. iii., 
15, 16 ; Acts i., 16, etc. (3.) Christ often rebuked the Jews for 
disobeying, never for forging or corrupting, the text of their Scrip- 
tures. — Matt, xxii., 29. 

2d. The canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, as it is 
received by all Protestants, is the same as that which was authen- 
ticated by Christ and his apostles. (1.) The New Testament 
writers quote as Scripture almost every one of the books we now 
recognize, and they quote no other as Scripture. The number of 
direct quotations and implied allusions to the language of the 
Old Testament occurring in the New have been traced in up- 
wards of six hundred instances. (2.) The Septuagint, or Greek 
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, made in Egypt B. C. 285, 
which was itself frequently quoted by Christ and his apostles, 
embraced every book we now recognize. (3.) Josephus, who was 
born A. D. 37, in his first book in answer to Apion, enumerates 
as Hebrew Scriptures the same books by their classes. (4.) The 
uniform testimony of the early Christian writers, e. g., " Melito, 
A. D. 177 ; Origen, A. D. 230 ; Athanasius, A. D. 326 ; Jerome 
A. D. 390 ; Augustine A. D. 395/' (5.) Ever since the time of 
Christ, Jews and Christians have been severally custodians of the 
same canon. Their agreement with us to-day demonstrates the 
identity of our Scriptures with those of the Jews of the first 
century. 



APOCRYPHA, 93 

6. What are the Apocrypha ? 

The word Apocrypha, from dnb and fcpvrrrG), signifying any- 
thing hidden, concealed, has been applied to certain ancient writ- 
ings whose authorship is not manifest, and in behalf of which 
unfounded claims have been set up for a place in the canon of 
(Scripture. Some of these are associated with the Old and others 
with the New Testament canon. This name, however, is more 
prominently associated with those spurious writings for which a 
place is claimed among the Old Testament Scriptures, because an 
active controversy concerning these exists between Komanists and 
Protestants. They were also styled by the early church ecclesi- 
astical, to distinguish them from the acknowledged word of 
God. In later times they have been styled by some Komanists 
Deutero-canonical, as occupying a certain secondary place in the 
canon, some say as to authority, others merely as to succession 
in time. 

These are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecdesiasticus, Baruk, and 
the tiuo boohs of Maccabees. They also add six chapters to the 
book of Esther. They prefix to the book of Daniel the History of 
Susannah, and insert in the third chapter the Song of the Three 
Children, and add to the end of the book the History of Bel and 
the Dragon. The Romish church, on the other hand, rejects as 
spurious certain other books which are found side by side with 
the above in the early Greek Scriptures, and in their Latin trans- 
lations, e. g., the third and fourth books of Esdras, the third book 
of Maccabees, the 151st Psalm, the appendix to Job, and the 
preface to Lamentations. — Council of Trent, Sess. 4. 

See Alexander on Canon, and Kitto's Bib. Ency., Art. " Deu- 
tero Canonical." 

7. Hoiv did they become associated witli Holy Scripture, and 
upon what ground do the Romanists advocate their place in the 
canon ? 

They are believed to have been written by Alexandrian Jews 
between the ages of Malachi and Christ. They first appear in 
certain history in the Greek language, and in connection with the 
Septuagint translation of the genuine Scriptures, among which it 
is probable they were surreptitiously introduced by heretics. 



94 THE CANON OF SCRIPTUKE. 

The Eomanists argue, 1st. That they appear in the first Greek 
copies of the Old Testament, and in the Latin translation from 
them. 2d. That they were highly reverenced and quoted by the 
early fathers. 3d. That the church in her plenary authority has 
authenticated them at the Council of Trent, A. D. 1546. 

8. Give a synopsis of the argument by which their right to a 
place in the canon is disproved ? 

1st. These books never formed part of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

2d. The Jews were the divinely appointed guardians of the 
ancient oracles. — Eom. iii., 2. Christ charged them with making 
the written word of none effect by their traditions, but never with 
mutilating the record. — Matt, xv., 6. Yet the Jews have uni- 
formly denied the spurious books in question from the time of 
Josephus to the present. — Josephus' Answer to Apion, Book I., 
sec. 8. 

3d. These books were never quoted either by Christ or his 
apostles. 

4th. Although held by the early fathers to be useful as his- 
tory for the general purposes of edification, they were never held 
as authoritative in settling matters of faith. They were not em- 
braced in the earliest lists of the canon. Jerome, the most learned 
of the fathers, living in the latter half of the fourth century, re- 
jected their claims. They were held as of very doubtful and 
secondary authority by many prominent Komanist teachers up 
to the very time of the Council of Trent, e. g., Erasmus, Cardinal 
Cajetan, etc. 

5th The internal evidence presented by their contents confirms 
the external evidence above set forth. (1.) None of them make 
any claim to inspiration ; the best of them plainly disclaim it, 
e. g., Ecclesiasticus, 1st and 2d Maccabees. (2.) The contents of 
many of them consist of childish fables ; they are inconsistent in 
fact and defective in morality. 

6 tli. All Protestants agree in rejecting them. — See 6th Article 
of Keligion in the Episcopal Prayer-Book, and Confession of Faith, 
chap, i., sec. 3. Alexander on Canon, and Home's Introduction, 
Vol. L, Appendix 5. 

9. What is the Talmud, and how is it regarded by the Jews ? 



TALMUD. 95 

The Jews pretend that when Moses was with the Lord in the 
mount he received one law which he was to reduce to writing, 
and another law, explanatory and supplementary to the former, 
which he was to commit to certain leaders of the people to be 
transmitted through oral tradition to the remotest generations. 
This oral law he did thus commit through Aaron, Eliezer, and 
Joshua, to the prophets, and through the prophets to the rabbins 
of the early centuries of the Christian era, who reduced it to 
writing, because such a precaution was then necessary for its pre- 
servation under the dispersed and depressed condition of Israel. 
This oral law, as written, constitutes the Mishna, or text, which, 
together with the Gemara or commentary thereon, constitutes the 
Talmud. 

There are two Gemaras, and, consequently, two Talmud s. 
The Jerusalem Gemara, compiled some say in the third, and others 
in the fourth century. The Babylonian, compiled in the sixth 
century. This last, together with the Mishna, constitutes the 
Talmud which is most highly esteemed by the modern Jews, and 
is really, to the exclusion of the Holy Scriptures, the fountain of 
their religion. 

It is reputed by competent scholars as beyond parallel trivial, 
and full of intellectual and moral darkness. It derives not one 
iota of support from a single word of Scripture. Its incipient 
spirit was severely condemned by Christ in the Pharisees of his 
day.— Matt, xv., 1-9 ; Mark vii., 1-13. 

10. When teas the canon of the New Testament settled, and 
by what authority ? 

The authority of every inspired writing is inherent in itself as 
God's word, but the fact of its being the work of inspired men is 
ascertained to us by the testimony of cotemporaries, who were the 
only competent witnesses on the subject. Every gospel epistle or 
prophecy written by an apostle, or by a known companion of an 
apostle, and claiming scriptural authority, was received as such 
by all Christians to whom it was known. Considering the pov- 
erty of the early Christians, the persecutions to which they were 
subject, the imperfect means of multiplying copies of Scripture at 
their disposal, the comparative infrequency of intercommunication 
in those days, the apostolic writings were disseminated with a 



96 THE CANON OF SCRIPTUKE. 

rapidity, and acknowledged with a universality of consent truly 
wonderful. Such writings as were directed to particular churches 
were immediately accredited ; while the circular letters or epistles 
generally were longer left in doubt. Each individual church and 
teacher received all of the apostolic writings which they were in a 
position to ascertain by legitimate evidence. "With regard to 
most of the books composing our present Bibles general consent 
was established from the first, while with regard to a few a period 
of doubt and investigation intervened. During this period they 
were distributed into two classes. 1st. The homologoumena or 
universally received, comprising the large majority of the books we 
possess. 2d. The antilegomena or the controverted, 2d Peter, 
James, Jude, 2d and 3d John, Kevelations, and Hebrews. Most 
of this last class, however, were received by the majority of Chris- 
tians from the beginning, and their evidences, after the most 
thorough scrutiny, secured universal assent by the fourth cen- 
tury. — See Jones' New Method, Part I., chap. v. ; Kitto's Bib. 
Ency., Art. "Antilegomena." 

11. Give a synopsis of the argument establishing) the genuine- 
ness of the boohs contained in the received canon of the New Tes- 
tament. 

1st. Any writing proved to be written by an apostle, or under 
the supervision of an apostle, is to be regarded as part of the canon 
of Scripture. 

2d. The universal or the nearly universal consent of the early 
Christians to the fact of the derivation of a Writing from an 
apostle, or from one wilting under an apostle's supervision, 
conclusively establishes the right of such a writing to a place in 
the canon. 

3d. The fact that the early Christians unite in testifying to 
the genuineness of most of the books constituting our New Testa- 
ment, and that a majority of these witnesses testify to the genu- 
ineness of all of them, is abundantly proved. 

(1.) The early Christian writers in all parts of the world con- 
sent in quoting as Scripture the writings now embraced in our 
canon, while they quote all other writings only for illustration, 
not authority. 

(2.) The earliest church fathers, beginning with Origen, about 



NEW TESTAMENT. 97 

A. D. 210, furnish for the guidance of their disciples catalogues 
of the hooks they held to he canonical. Jones, in his work on 
the Xew Testament Canon, Yol. I., pp. 60-63, cites thirteen of 
the earliest catalogues, ranging from A. D. 210 to A. D. 390 ; 
seven of these agree perfectly with ours ; three others agree per- 
fectly with ours, only omitting Eevelations ; one other omits 
only Eevelations and Hebrews : one other agrees with ours, only 
speaking doubtful of Hebrews ; and one other speaks doubtfully 
of James, Jude, 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John. 

(3.) The earliest translations of the Scriptures into other lan- 
guages prove that, at the time they were made, the books they 
contain were recognized as Scripture, a. The Peshito or ancient 
Syriac translation, made during the first or second century, includes 
the four gospels, Acts, all the epistles of Paul, the epistle of James, 
and the 1st epistle of John, and the 1st of Peter. Eevelations 
was probably longer in being recognized, because its contents were 
so mysterious that it was not as much read or as diligently circu- 
lated as the others, b. The Italic or early Latin version is not 
now extant, but it is believed to have contained the same books 
afterwards embraced in the vulgate or version of St. Jerome, A. D . 
3S5, which agrees wholly with ours. 

4th. The internal evidences corroborate the external testimony. 

(1.) The language in which these books were written (later 
Greek qualified by Hebrew idiom) proves their authors to have' 
lived in Palestine, and at the precise age of the world in which 
their reputed authors did live there. 

(2.) They present precisely that unity in essentials with cir- 
cumstantial diversities which is most convincing. Paley (in his 
Horae Paulina?) has demonstrated that the Acts and the Pauline 
Epistles mutually confirm each other. See also Blunt's Unde- 
signed Coincidences, and the various Harmonies of the Gospels. 
The whole Xew Testament forms an inseparable whole. 

(3.) They have all been found precious by God's spiritual 
church of all ages, and are quick and powerful to the conscience. 

5th. With respect to those smaller writings, the testimony for 
which is not as absolutely unanimous as for the rest, there re- 
mains this invincible presumption, that God would not permit 
his true people all over the world and of all ages to corrupt his 
word with the admixture of human compositions. 

1 



98 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 

12. What special questions do the writings of Mark and 
Luke present ? 

The testimony that the second and third gospels were really 
written by these men is unanimous and unquestioned, but as they 
were not apostles the question is as to the proof that their writ- 
ings are inspired. 

Although not themselves apostles, they were the immediate 
associates of those princes of the church, and there was a well- 
accredited tradition among the fathers that Mark wrote his gospel 
under the direction of Peter, and that Luke wrote his under the 
direction of Paul. Their writings were widely circulated thirty 
years before the death of John, and while Peter and Paul were 
living, and yet they were among the very first Scriptures to be 
universally received as canonical. They therefore must have been 
approved by at least the apostle John. Besides this, their in- 
ternal evidence, literary, moral, and spiritual, and their harmony 
with the other Scriptures in spirit and as to fact, establishes their 
claim. — See Alexander on Canon, Part II., Sec. 7. 

13. By ivhat marks have the Apocryphal toritings of the New 
Testament era been discriminated from the genuine writings of 
the apostles ? 

The writings thus discriminated by the early Christians were 
of two kinds — 

1st. The genuine writings of holy men who lived in the age 
immediately subsequent to the apostles, and who wrote edifying 
epistles and treatises on topics of Christian doctrine or practice. 
These were called ecclesiastical, and were often read in the 
churches for edification, though never appealed to as author- 
ity, e. (/., Epistle of Clemens Komanus and the Shepherd of 
Hennas. 

2d. Spurious compositions, falsely set forth as the writings of 
Christ or of his apostles, or of their disciples. Some of these were 
well intentioned pious frauds ; others were the forgeries of here- 
tics. A few of these appeared in the second, but most in the 
fourth century, and the greater part are now lost. As far as their 
names can be recovered, Mr. Jones has given a complete list both 
of those now extant and of those that have been lost. — Jones' 
New Method, Part I., chap, iii, and Part III. The principal writ- 



SACKED TEXT. 99 

ings of this class now extant are the Letter of our Saviour to 
Abgarus, king of Edessa ; the Constitutions and Creed of the 
Apostles ; the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy ; Letters of Paul 
to Seneca ; the Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc. 

Mr. Jones has set clown several marks in his work, Part I., 
chaps, xi., xii.j xiii., by which all these writings may be proved to 
constitute no part of Holy Scripture. The sum of the results of 
his investigations in the first and second parts of his work are, 
that all these writings are proved by their contents to be unworthy 
of a place in the canon ; by their style not to be the work of their 
reputed authors ; by frequent contradictions not to be consistent 
with the received Scriptures. That not one of them was ever 
quoted or enrolled as canonical by any competent number of cotem- 
poraneous witnesses. That nearly all of them were expressly repu- 
diated as spurious, or at least as uninspired, by the early church. 

14. What are the sources from which the true text of the Old 
Testament is ascertained 1 

1st. Ancient manuscripts. The Jews have always copied and 
preserved their manuscripts with superstitious care, even count- 
ing the words and letters. " In the period between the sixth 
and tenth centuries they had two celebrated academies, one at 
Babylon, in the East, and the other at Tiberias, in the West, 
where their literature was cultivated, and their Scriptures fre- 
quently transcribed. Hence arose two distinct recensions or 
editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were collated in the 
eighth or ninth centuries," and the text thus prepared is the 
masoretic or traditioncd text which we now have in our Hebrew 
Bibles. The most ancient existing Hebrew manuscripts date 
from the ninth or tenth centuries. The majority range from 
A. D. 1000 to A. D. 1457. The oldest extant printed Hebrew 
Bible dates A. D. 1488. Dr. Kennicott collated in preparation 
for his critical edition of the Hebrew Bible six hundred and thirty 
manuscripts, and M. cle Rossi collated nine hundred and fifty- 
eight. The various readings presented by these manuscripts in 
very few cases involve the sense of the passage, and chiefly relate 
to differences in the vowel points, accents, etc. 

2d. We may correct the existing text by comparing it with 
(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch, or the edition of the five books 



100 THE CANON OF SCRIPTUKE. 

of Moses which the Samaritans inherited from the ten tribes. 
(2.) The Targums, which are eleven books in number, some of them 
dating from the first century before Christ, and being generally 
very accurate paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures in the an- 
cient Chaldee. (3.) With the early translations of the Scriptures 
into other languages, a The Greek Septuagint, made B. C. 
285. b The Peshito or ancient Syriac version, A. D. 100 about. 
c The Latin Yulgate made by Jerome A. D. 385. — Home's 
Introduction. 

15. What are the sources from which the true text of the Neiv 
Testament Scripture is ascertained ? 

1st. Ancient manuscripts. The oldest and most authorita- 
tive Greek manuscripts now extant : (1.) The Codex Alexandri- 
nus of the fifth century, (called A.) now in the British Museum. 
(2.) The Codex Vaticanus of the fourth century, (called B.) now 
in the Vatican Library at Rome. (3.) Codex Regius of the sixth 
century, (called C.) now in the Royal Library, Paris. (4.) The 
Codex Bezse of the sixth century, (called D.) now in the Univer- 
sity Library, Cambridge. Manuscripts succeeding these in age, 
up to the end of the fifteenth century, abound all over Europe. 
Upwards of six hundred have been diligently collated in prepara- 
tion for recent editions of the Greek Testament. The results of 
the most thorough investigations is uniformly declared by the 
most competent scholars to establish beyond question the integ- 
rity of the sacred text. 

2d. The numerous and accurate quotations of the Scriptures 
preserved in the writings of the early Christians. " In not less 
than one hundred and eighty ecclesiastical writers, whose works 
are still extant, are quotations from the New Testament intro- 
duced, and so numerous are they, that from the works of those 
that flourished before the seventh century the whole text of the 
New Testament might have been recovered, if the originals had 
perished." 

3d. Early translations into other languages. (1.) The Peshito 
or ancient Syriac version about A .D. 100. (2.) The Latin Yulgate 
of Jerome A. D. 385. (3.) The Coptic of the fifth century, and 
others of less critical value. — Home's Intro., and Angus' Bible 
Hand-Book, 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE ATTKIBUTES OF GOD. 

As the result of the argument for the being of God presented in 
the first chapter, we found (Chap. I., question 20) that even the 
light of nature surely discovers that there is a God, and that he is a 
personal spirit, infinite, eternal, self-existent, the first cause of 
all things, infinitely intelligent, powerful, free of will, righteous, 
and benevolent. It remains for us in the present chapter to 
attempt to collect and present that additional and clearer knowl- 
edge of the divine nature which the Scriptures make known to us 
by means of his names and his attributes. 

1. State the etymology and meaning of the several names ap- 
propriated to God in the Scriptures. 

1st. Jehovah, from the Hebrew verb rnn, to he. It expresses 
self-existence and unchangeableness ; it is the incommunicable 
name of God, which the Jews super stitiously refused to pro- 
nounce, always substituting in their reading the word Adonai, 
Lord. Hence it is represented in our English version by the word 
Lokd, printed in capital letters. 

Jah, probably an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, is used 
principally in the Psalms. — Ps. lxviii., 4. It constitutes the con- 
cluding syllable of hallelujah, praise Jehovah. 

God gave to Moses his peculiar name, " I am that I am/' 
Ex. iii., 14, from the same root, and bearing the same funda- 
mental significance as Jehovah. 

2d. El, might, power, translated God, and applied alike to 
the true and to the false gods. — Isa. xliv., 10. 

3d. Elohim and Eloah, the same name in its singular and 
plural form, derived, from nVa, to fear, reverence. "In its singular 
form it is used only in the latter books and in poetry." In the 



102 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

plural form it is sometimes used with a plural sense for gods, but 
more commonly as a pluralis excellentige, for God. It is applied 
to false gods, but preeminently to Jehovah as the great object of 
adoration. 

4th. Adonai, the Lord, a pluralis excellentice, applied ex- 
clusively to God, expressing possession and sovereign dominion, 
equivalent to nvgwg, Lord, so frequently applied to Christ in the 
New Testament. 

5th. Saddai, almighty, a pluralis excellentia3. Sometimes it 
stands by itself. — Job v., 17 ; and sometimes combined with a 
preceding El. — Gen. xvii., 1. 

6th. Elyon, Most High, a verbal adjective from nVs, to go up, 
ascend. — Ps. ix., 3; xxi., 8. 

7th. The term Tzebaoth, of hosts, is frequently used as an 
epithet qualifying one of the above-mentioned names of God. 
Thus, Jehovah of Hosts, God of Hosts, Jehovah, God of Hosts. — 
Amos iv., 13; Ps. xxiv., 10. Some have thought this equivalent 
to God of Battles. The true force of the epithet, however, is 
" sovereign of the stars, material hosts of heaven, and of the an- 
gels their inhabitants." — Dr. J. A. Alexander, Com. on Ps. xxiv., 
10, and Gesenius' Heb. Lex. 

8th. Many other epithets are applied to God metaphorically, 
to set forth the relation he sustains to us and the offices he ful- 
fills, e. g., King, Lawgiver, Judge. — Isa. xxxiii., 17 ; Ps. xxiv., 
8 ; 1., 6. Kock, Fortress, Tower, Deliverer. — 2 Sam. xxii., 2, 3 ; 
Ps. lxii., 2. Shepherd, Husbandman. — Ps. xxiii., 1; John, xv., 1. 
Father, Matt, vi , 9 ; John xx., 17, etc. 

2. What are the divine attributes ? 

As God is infinite in his being, and in all the affections and 
modes thereof, it is manifestly impossible for any creature to con- 
ceive of him as he is in himself, or as he apprehends his own infi- 
nite being in his infinite knowledge. Yet he has mercifully con- 
descended to reveal himself to us under the form of certain finite 
conceptions, which are possible to us only after the analogy of 
our own spiritual constitution, and because of the revealed fact 
that man was created in the image of God. They are imperfect, 
because finite conceptions ; they are true, because revealed by God 
himself to man created in his own image. The word attribute 



CLASSIFICATION. 103 

signifies that which in human thought, on the authority of divine 
revelation, is to be truly attributed to or predicated of God. 
They are not, however, to be conceived of as properties dis- 
tinct from his essence, but as modes of conceiving of his essence. 
His knowledge is his essence knowing, as his love is his essence 
loving. 

Concerning the nature and operations of God, we can know 
only what he has vouchsafed to reveal to us, and with every con- 
ception, either of his being or his acts, there must always attend 
an element of incomprehensibility, which is inseparable from in- 
finitude. His knowledge and power are as truly beyond all under- 
standing as his eternity or immensity. — Job. xi., 7-9 ; xxvi., 14 ; 
Ps. cxxxix., 5, 6; Isa. xl., 28. The moral elements of his glorious 
nature are the norm or original law of our moral faculties : thus 
we are made capable of comprehending the ultimate principles of 
truth and justice upon which he acts. Yet his action upon those 
principles is often a trial of our faith, and an occasion of our 
adoring wonder. — Eom. xi., 33-36 ; Isa. lv., 8, 9. 

3. How are we to understand those passages of Scripture 
which attribute to God bodily parts and the infirmities of human 
passion ? 

The passages referred to are such as speak of the face of God, 
Ex. xxxiii., 11, 20 ; his eyes, 2 Chron., xvi., 9 ; his nostrils, 2 
Sam. xxii., 9, 16; his arms and feet, Isa. lii., 10, and Ps. xviii., 9; 
and such as speak of his repenting and grieving, Gen. vi., 6, 7 ; 
Jer. xv., 6 ; Ps. xcv., 10 ; of his being jealous, Deut. xxix., 20, 
etc. These are to be understood only as metaphors. They rep- 
resent the truth with respect to God only analogically, and as 
seen from our point of view. 

When he is said to repent, or to be grieved, or to be jealous, 
it is only meant that he acts towards us as a man would 
when agitated by such passions. These metaphors occur princi- 
pally in the Old Testament, and in highly rhetorical passages of 
the poetical and prophetical books. 

4. Hoiv may the divine attributes be classified 1 

From the vastness of the subject and the incommensurateness 
of our faculties, it is evident that no classification of the divine 



104 THE ATTKIBUTES OF GOD. 

attributes we can form can be anything more than approximately 
accurate and complete. The most common classifications rest 
upon the following principles : — 

1st. The attributes of God, distinguished as communicable 
and incommunicable. The communicable are those to which the 
attributes of the human spirit bear the nearest analogy, e. g., his 
power, knowledge, will, goodness, and righteousness. The incom- 
municable are those to which there is in the creature nothing an- 
alogous, as eternity, immensity, etc. This distinction, however, 
must not be pressed too far. God is infinite in his relation to 
space and time ; we are finite in our relation to both. But he is 
no less infinite as to his knowledge, will, goodness, and righteous- 
ness in all their modes, and we are finite in all these respects. 
All God's attributes known to us, or conceivable by us, are com- 
municable, in as much as they have their analogy in us, but they 
are all alike incommunicable, in as much as they are all infinite. 

2d. The attributes of God, distinguished as natural and moral. 
The natural are all those which pertain to his existence as an in- 
finite, rational Spirit, e. g., eternity, immensity, intelligence, will, 
power. The moral are those additional attributes which belong 
to him as an infinite, righteous Spirit, e. g., justice, mercy, truth. 

I would diffidently propose the folio wing four-fo]d clasification: 

(1.) Those attributes which equally qualify all the rest — In- 
finitude, that which has no bounds ; absoluteness, that which is 
determined either in its being or modes of being or action by 
nothing whatsoever without itself. This includes immutability. 

(2.) Natural attributes. God is an infinite Spirit, self-exist- 
ent, eternal, immense, simple, free of will, intelligent, powerful. 

(3). Moral attributes. God is a Spirit infinitely righteous, 
good, true, and faithful. 

(4.) The consummate glory of all the divine perfections in 
union. The beauty of holiness. 

THE UNITY OF GOD. 

5. In what sense is God one ? 

1st. There is only one God, to the exclusion of all others. 

2d. Notwithstanding the threefold personal distinction in the 
unity of the Godhead, yet these three are one in substance, and 
constitute one indivisible God. 



UNITY. 105 

6. How may the proposition, that God is one and indivisible, 
be proved ? 

1st. There appears to be a necessity in reason for conceiving 
of God as one. That which is absolute and infinite can not but 
be one and indivisible in essence. If God is not one, then it will 
necessarily follow that there are more gods than one. 

2d. The uniform representation of Scripture. — John x., 30. 

7. Prove from Scripture that the proposition, there is but 
one God, is true. 

Deut. vi., 4 ; 1 Kings viii., 60 ; Isa. xliv., 6 ; Mark xii., 29, 
32 ; 1 Cor. viii., 4 ; Eph. iv., 6. 

8. What is the argument from the harmony of creation in 
favor of the divine unity ? 

The whole creation, between the outermost range of telescopic 
and of microscopic observation, is manifestly one indivisible sys- 
tem. But we have already (Chapter I.) proved the existence of 
God from the phenomena of the universe ; and we now argue 
upon the same principle that if an effect proves the prior opera- 
tion of a cause, and if traces of design prove a designer, then 
singleness of plan and operation in that design and its execution 
prove that the designer is one. 

9. What is the argument upon this point from necessary 
existence ? 

The existence of God is said to be necessary, because it has its 
cause from eternity in itself. It is the same in all duration and 
in all space alike. It is absurd to conceive of God's not existing 
at any time or in any portion of space, while all other existence 
whatsoever, depending upon his mere will, is contingent. But the 
necessity which is uniform in all times and in every portion of 
space, is evidently only one and indivisible, and can be the ground 
of the existence only of one God. 

This argument is logical, and has been prized highly by many 
distinguished theologians. It however appears to involve the error 
of presuming human logic to be the measure of existence. 

10. What is the argument from infinite perfection, in proof 
that there can be but one God ? 



106 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

God is infinite in his being and in all of his perfections. But 
the infinite, by including all, excludes all others. If there were 
two infinite beings, each would necessarily include the other, and 
be included by it, and thus they would be the same, one and 
identical. It is certain that the idea of the co-existence of two 
infinitely perfect beings is as repugnant to human reason as to 
Scripture. 

11. What is polytheism ? and ivhat dualism ? 

Polytheism, as the etymology of the word indicates, is a gen- 
eral term designating every system of religion which teaches the 
existence of a plurality of gods. 

Dualism is the designation of that system which recognizes 
two original and independent principles in the universe, the one 
good and the other evil. At present these principles are in a rela- 
tion of ceaseless antagonism, the good ever struggling to oppose 
the evil, and to deliver its province from its baneful intrusion. 

12. What is meant by the phrase simplicity, when applied to 
God? 

The term simplicity is used, first, in opposition to material 
composition, whether mechanical, organic, or chemical ; second, 
in a metaphysical sense in negation of the relation of substance 
and property, essence and mode. In the first sense of the word 
human souls are simple, because they are not composed of ele- 
ments, parts, or organs. In the second sense of the word our 
souls are complex, since there is in them a distinction between 
their essence and their properties, and their successive modes or 
states of existence. As, however, God is infinite, eternal, self- 
existent from eternity, necessarily the same without succession, 
theologians have maintained that in him essence, and property, 
and mode are one. He always is what he is, and he is what he is 
essentially, and by the same necessity that he exists. Whatever 
is in God, whether thought, emotion, volition, or act, is God. 

Although this distinction has the sanction of the highest names, 
it appears to involve at least a questionable application of human 
reason to subjects so far transcending the analogy of human con- 
sciousness. 

13. What is affirmed when it is said that God is a spirit ? 



SPIRITUALITY. 107 

We know nothing of substance except as it is manifested by 
its properties. Matter is that substance whose properties mani- 
fest themselves directly to our bodily senses. Spirit is that sub- 
stance whose properties manifest themselves to us directly in 
self-consciousness, and only infer entially by words and other 
signs or modes of expression through our senses. 

When we say God is a Spirit we mean — 

1st. Negatively, that he does not possess bodily parts or pas- 
sions ; that he is composed of no material elements ; that he is 
not subject to any of the limiting conditions of material exist- 
ence ; and, consequently, that he is not to be apprehended as the 
object of any of our bodily senses. 

2d. Positively, that he is a rational being, who distinguishes 
with infinite precision between the true and the false ; that he is 
a moral being, who distinguishes between the right and the wrong; 
that he is a free agent, whose action is self-determined by his own 
will ; and, in fine, that all the essential properties of our spirits 
may truly be predicated of him in an infinite degree. — Johniv., 24; 
Chap. I., questions 23, 24, 27, 30. 

god's relation to space. 

14. What is meant by the immensity of God ? 

The immensity of God is the phrase used to express the fact 
that God is infinite in his relation to space, i. e., that the entire 
indivisible essence of God is at every moment of time cotempo- 
raneously present to every point of infinite space. 

This is not in virtue of the infinite multiplication of his Spirit, 
since he is eternally one and individual ; nor does it result from 
the infinite diffusion of his essence through infinite space, as air 
is diffused over the surface of the earth, since, being a Spirit, he is 
not composed of parts, nor is he capable of extension, but the 
whole Godhead in the one indivisible essence is equally present in 
every moment of eternal duration to the whole of infinite space, 
and to every part of it. 

15. How does immensity differ from omnipresence ? 

Immensity characterizes the relation of God to space viewed 
abstractly in itself. Omnipresence characterizes the relation of 



108 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

God to his creatures as they severally occupy their several posi- 
tions in space. The divine essence is immense in its own being, 
absolutely. It is omnipresent relatively to all his creatures. 

16. What are the different modes of the divine presence, and 
how may it be proved that he is everywhere present as to his 

essence ? 

God may be conceived of as present in any place, or with any 
creature, in several modes, first, as to his essence ; second, as to 
his knowledge ; third, as manifesting that presence to any intelli- 
gent creature ; fourth, as exercising his power in any way in or 
upon the creature. As to essence and knowledge, his presence is 
the same everywhere and always. As to his self-manifestation 
and the exercise of his power, his presence differs endlessly in 
different cases in degree and mode. Thus God is present to the 
church as he is not to the world. Thus he is present in hell in 
the manifestation and execution of righteous wrath, while he is 
present in heaven in the manifestation and communication of 
gracious love and glory. 

That God is everywhere present as to his essence is proved, 
first, from Scripture (1 Kings viii., 27 ; Ps. cxxxix., 7-10 ; 
Isa. lxvi., 1 ; Acts xvii., 27, 28) ; second, from reason. (1.) It 
follows necessarily from his infinitude. (2.) From the fact 
that his knowledge is his essence knowing, and his actions are 
his essence acting. Yet his knowledge and his power reach to 
all things. 

17. State the different relations that bodies created spirits 
and God sustain to space. 

Turretin says : Bodies are conceived of as existing in space 
circumscriptively , because occupying a certain portion of space 
they are bounded by space upon every side. Created spirits do 
not occupy any portion of space, nor are they embraced by any, 
they are, however, in space definitely, as here and not there. 
God, on the other hand, is in space repletively, because in a tran- 
scendent manner his essence fills all space. He is included in no 
space ; he is excluded from none. Wholly present to each point, 
he comprehends all space at once. 



RELATION TO TIME. 109 

THE RELATION OF GOD TO TIME. 

18. What is eternity ? 

Eternity is infinite duration ; duration discharged from all 
limits, without beginning, without succession, and without end. 
The schoolmen phrase it punctum stans, an ever-abiding present. 

We, however, can positively conceive of eternity only as du- 
ration indefinitely extended from the present moment in two 
directions, as to the past and as to the future. These are im- 
properly expressed as eternity a parte ante, or past, and eternity 
a parte post, or future. The eternity of God, however, is one 
and indivisible. 

19. What is time ? 

Time is limited duration, measured by succession, either of 
thought or motion. It is distinguished in reference to our per- 
ceptions into past, present, and future, 

20. What relation does time bear to eternity ? 

Eternity, the unchanging present, without beginning or end, 
comprehends all time, and co-exists as an undivided moment, 
with all the successions of time as they appear and pass in their 
order. 

Thought is possible to us, however, only under the limitations 
of time and space. We can conceive of God only under the finite 
fashion of first purposing 1 and then acting, of first promising or 
threatening and then fulfilling his word, etc. He that inhabiteth 
eternity infinitely transcends our understanding. — Isa. lvii., 15. 

21. When we say that God is eternal, what do we affirm and 
ivhat do we deny ? 

We affirm, first, that as to his existence, he never had any 
beginning, and never will have any end ; second, that as to the 
mode of his existence, his thoughts, emotions, purposes, and acts 
are, without succession, one and inseparable the same for ever ; 
third, that he is immutable. 

We deny, first, that he ever had a beginning or ever will have 
an end ; second, that his states or modes of being occur in suc- 
cession ; third, that his essence, attributes, or purposes will ever 
change, 



110 THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. 

22. In what sense are the acts of God spoken of as past, pre- 
sent, and future ? 

The acts of God are never past, present, or future as respects 
God himself, but only in respect to the objects and effects of his 
acts in the creature. The efficient purpose comprehending the 
precise object, time, and circumstance was present to him always 
and changelessly ; the event, however, taking place in the crea- 
ture, occurs in time, and is thus past, present, or future to our 
observation. 

23. In what sense are events past or future as it regards 
God? 

As God's knowledge is infinite, every event must, first, be 
ever equally present to his knowledge from eternity to eternity ; 
second, these events must be known to him as they actually occur 
in themselves, e. g., in their true nature, relations, and succes- 
sions. This distinction, therefore, holds true — God's knowledge 
of all events is without beginning, end, or succession ; but he 
knows them as in themselves occurring in the successions of time, 
past, present, or future, relatively to one another. 

24. What is meant by the immutability of God ? 

By his immutability we mean that it follows from the infinite 
perfection of God ; that he can not be changed by anything 
from without himself ; and that he will not change from any 
principle within himself. That as to his essence, his will, and his 
states of existence, he is the same from eternity to eternity. 
Thus he is absolutely immutable in himself. He is also immutable 
relatively to the creature, in so much as his knowledge, purpose, 
and truth, as these are conceived by us and are revealed to us, can 
know neither variableness nor shadow of turning. — -James i., 17. 

25. Prove from Scripture and reason that God is immu- 
table. 

1st. Scripture : Mai. iii., 6 ; Ps. xxxiii., 11 ; Isa. xlvi., 10 : 
James i., IT. 

2d. Keason: (1.) God is self-existent. As he is caused by none, 
but causes all, so he can be changed by none, but changes all. 
(2.) He is the absolute being. Neither his existence, nor the man- 



RELATION TO TIME. Ill 

ner of it, nor his will, are determined by any necessary relation 
which they sustain to any thing exterior to himself. As he pre- 
ceded all and caused all, so his sovereign will freely determined 
the relations which all things are permitted to sustain to him. 
(3.) He is infinite in duration, and therefore he can not know 
succession or change. (4.) He is infinite in all perfection, knowl- 
edge, wisdom, righteousness, benevolence, will, power, and there- 
fore can not change, for nothing can be added to the infinite nor 
taken from it. Any change would make him either less than in- 
finite before, or less than infinite afterwards. 

26. How can the creation of the world and the incarnation 
of the Son be reconciled with the immutability of God ? 

1st. As to the creation. The efficacious purpose, the will 
and power to create the world dwelleth in God from eternity 
without change, but this very efficacious purpose itself provided 
that the effect should take place in its proper time and order. 
This effect took place from God, but of course involved no sha- 
dow of change in God, as nothing was either taken from him or 
added to him. 

2d. As to the incarnation. The divine Son assumed a created 
human nature into personal union with himself. His uncreated 
essence of course was not changed. His eternal person was not 
changed in itself, but only brought into a new relation. The 
change effected by that stupendous event occurred only in the 
created nature of the man Christ Jesus. 

THE INFINITE INTELLIGENCE OF GOD. 

27. Hoiv does God's mode of knowing differ from ours ? 
God's knowledge is, 1st, his essence knowing ; 2d, it is one 

eternal, all-comprehensive, indivisible act. 

(1.) It is not discursive, i. c, proceeding logically from the 
known to the unknown ; but intuitive, i. e., discerning all things 
directly in its own light. 

(2.) It is independent, i. e., it does in no way depend upon 
his creatures or their actions, but solely upon his own infinite 
intuition of all things possible in the light of his own reason, 
and of all things actual and future in the light of his own eternal 
purpose. 



112 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

(3.) It is total and simultaneous, not successive. It is one 
single ; indivisible act of intuition, beholding all things in them- 
selves, their relations and successions, as ever present. 

(4.) It is perfect and essential, not relative, i. e., he knows all 
things directly in their hidden essences, while we know them only 
by their properties, as they stand related to our senses. 

28. How may the objects of divine hioivledge be classified ? 

1st. God himself in his own infinite being. It is evident that 
this, transcending the sum of all other objects, is the only ade- 
quate object of a knowledge really infinite. 

2d. All possible objects, as such, whether they are or ever 
have been, or ever will be or not, seen in the light of his own in- 
finite reason. 

3d. All things which have been, are, or will be, he compre- 
hends in one eternal, simultaneous act of knowledge, as ever pre- 
sent actualities to him, and as known to be such in the light of 
his own sovereign and eternal purpose. 

29. What is the technical designation of the knowledge of 
■ things possible, and tohat is the foundation of that knowledge ? 

Its technical designation is scientia simplicis intelligently, 
knoivledge of simple intelligence, so called, because it is conceived 
by us as an act simply of the divine intellect, without any con- 
current act of the divine will. For the same reason it has been 
styled scientia necessaria, necessary knowledge, i, e., not volun- 
tary, or determined by will. The foundation of that knowledge 
is God's essential and infinitely perfect knowledge of his own 
omnipotence. 

30. What is the technical designation of the knoivledge of 
things actual, lohether past, present, or future, and what is the 
foundation of that knowledge ? 

It is called scientia visionis, knowledge of vision, and scientia 
libera, free knowledge, because his intellect is in this case con- 
ceived of as being determined by a concurrent act of his will. 

The foundation of this knowledge is God's infinite knowledge 
of his own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose. 



INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. 113 

31. Prove that the knowledge of God extends to future con- 
tingent events. 

The contingency of events in our view of them has a two-fold 
ground : first, their immediate causes may be by us indeterminate, 
as in the case of the dice ; second, their immediate cause may be 
the volition of a free agent. The first class are in no sense con- 
tingent in God's view. The second class are foreknown by him 
as contingent in their cause, but as none the less certain in their 
event. 

That he does foreknow all such is certain — 

1st. Scripture affirms it. — 1 Sam. xxiii., 11, 12 ; Acts ii., 23; 
xv., 18 ; Isa. xlvi., 9, 10. 

2d. He has often predicted contingent events future, at the 
time of the prophecy, which the event has fulfilled. — Mark xiv., 30. 

3d. God is infinite in all his perfections, his knowledge, there- 
fore, must (1.) be perfect, and comprehend all things future as 
well as past (2.) independent of the creature. He knows all 
things in themselves by his own light, and can not depend upon 
the will of the creature to make his knowledge either more cer- 
tain or more complete. 

32. How can the foreknoivledge of God be reconciled with the 
freedom; of moral agents in their acts ? 

The difficulty here presented is of this nature. God's foreknowl- 
edge is certain ; the event, therefore, must be certainly future ; 
if certainly future, how can the agent be free in enacting it. 

In order to avoid this difficulty some theologians, on the one 
hand, have denied the reality of man's moral freedom, while 
others, on the other hand, have maintained that, God's knowl- 
edge being free, he voluntarily abstains from knowing what his 
creatures endowed with free agency will do. 

We remark — 

1st. God's certain foreknowledge of all future events and man's 
free agency are both certain facts, impregnably established by 
independent evidence. We must believe both, whether we can 
reconcile them or not. 

2d. Although necessity is inconsistent with liberty, moral 
certainty is not, as is abundantly shown in Chapter XVIIL, 
question 12. 

8 



114 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

33. What is scientia media ? 

This is the technical designation of God's knowledge of future 
contingent events, presumed, by the authors of this distinction, to 
depend not upon the eternal purpose of God making the event 
certain, but upon the free act of the creature as foreseen by a spe- 
cial intuition. It is called scientia media, middle Jcnoivledge, 
because it is supposed to occupy a middle ground between the 
knowledge of simple intelligence and the knowledge of vision. It 
differs from the former, since its object is not all possible things, 
but a special class of things actually future. It differs from the 
latter, since its ground is not the eternal purpose of God, but the 
free action of the creature as simply foreseen. 

34. By whom was this distinction introduced, and for what 
purpose ? 

By the Jesuit doctors, for the purpose of explaining how God 
might certainly foreknow what his free creatures would do in the 
absence of any sovereign foreordination on his part, determining 
their action. Thus making his foreordination of men to happi- 
ness or misery to depend upon his foreknowledge of their faith 
and obedience, and denying that his foreknowledge depends upon 
his sovereign foreordination. 

35. What are the arguments against the validity of this dis- 
tinction ? 

1st. The arguments upon which it is based are untenable. 
Its advocates plead, (1.) Scripture. — 1 Sam. xxiii., 9-12 ; Matt, 
xi., 22, 23. (2.) That this distinction is obviously necessary, in 
order to render the mode of the divine foreknowledge consistent 
with man's free agency. 

To the first argument we answer, that the events mentioned 
in the above-cited passages of Scripture were not future. They 
simply teach that God, knowing all causes, free and necessary, 
knows how they would act under any proposed condition. Even 
we know that if we add fire to powder an explosion would ensue. 
This comes under the first class we cited above, (question 29,) or 
the knowledge of all possible things. To the second argument 
we answer, that the certain foreknowledge of God involves the 
certainty of the future free act of his creature as much as his fore- 






INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. 115 

ordination does ; and that the sovereign foreordination of God, 
with respect to the free acts of nien, only makes them certainly 
future, and does not in the least provide for causing those acts 
in any other way than by the free will of the creature himself 
acting freely. 

2d. This middle knowledge is unnecessary, because. all possible 
objects of knowledge, all possible tilings, and all things actually 
to be, have already been embraced under the two classes already 
cited, (questions 29, 30.) 

3d. If God certainly foreknows any future event, then it must 
be certainly future, and he must have foreknown it to be certainly 
future, either because it was antecedently certain, or because his 
foreknowing it made it certain. If his foreknowing it made it 
certain, then his foreknowledge involves foreordination. If it 
was antecedently certain, then we ask, what could have made it 
certain, except what we affirm, the decree of God, either to cause 
it himself immediately, or to cause it through some necessary 
second cause, or that some free agent should cause it freely ? 
We can only choose between the foreordination of God and a 
blind fate. 

4th. This view makes the knowledge of God to depend upon 
the acts of his creatures without himself. This is both absurd 
and impious, if God is infinite, eternal, and absolute. 

5th. The Scriptures teach that God does foreordain as well as 
foreknow the free acts of men. — Isa.x.,5-15; Acts ii., 23; iv.,27,28. 

36. How does wisdom differ from knowledge, and wherein does 
the wisdom of God consist ? 

Knowledge is a simple act of the understanding, apprehend- 
ing that a thing is, and comprehending its nature and relations, 
or how it is. 

Wisdom presupposes knowledge, and is the practical use which 
the understanding, determined by the will, makes of the material 
of knowledge. God's wisdom is infinite and eternal. It is con- 
ceived of by us as selecting the highest possible end, the mani- 
festation of his own glory, and then in selecting and directing in 
every department of his operations the best possible means to 
secure that end. This wisdom is gloriously manifested to us in 
the great theaters of creation, providence, and grace. 



116 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

THE INFINITE POWER OF GOD. 

37. What is meant by the omnipotence of God ? 

Power is that efficiency which, by an essential law of thought, 
we recognize as inherent in a cause in relation to its effect. God 
is the uncaused first cause, and the causal efficiency of his will is 
absolutely limitless. 

38. In what sense have theologians admitted that the power 
of God is limited ? 

1st. By his own infinitely perfect nature. He can not act 
either unwisely or unjustly. 

2d. By the nature of things. He can not work an essential 
contradiction. 

We regard this language as inaccurate. For with regard to 
the first limit, his own nature, his power, resides in his will, and 
he certainly can do whatsoever he wills to do. It would be more 
accurate, therefore, to say that his infinitely wise and righteous 
will always chooses wisely and righteously, than to say that wis- 
dom or righteousness limits his power. 

With regard to the second limit. Contradictions are not 
things. To be and not to be at the same time, and in the same 
sense is a mere logical quibble. 

39. How can absolute omnipotence be proved to belong to 
God? 

1st. It is asserted by Scripture. — Jer. xxxii., 17 ; Matt, xix., 
26 ; Luke i., 37 ; Eev. xix., 6. 

2d. It is necessarily involved in the very idea of God as an 
infinite being. 

3d. Although we have seen but part of his ways, (Job xxvi., 
14), yet our constantly extending experience is ever revealing to 
us new and more astonishing evidences of his power, which always 
indicate an inexhaustible reserve. 

THE WILL OF GOD. 

40. What is meant by the will of God ? 

The will of God is the infinitely and eternally wise, powerful, 
and righteous essence of God willing. In our conception it is 



INFINITE WILL. 117 

that attribute of the Deity to which we refer his purposes and 
decrees as their principle. 

41. In what sense is the will of God said to be free, and in 
what sense necessary ? 

The will of God is the wise, powerful, and righteous essence 
of God willing. His will, therefore, in every act is certainly and 
yet most freely both wise and righteous. The liberty of indiffer- 
ence is evidently foreign to his nature, because the perfection of 
wisdom is to choose the most wisely, and the perfection of right- 
eousness is to choose the most righteously. 

On the other hand, the will of God is from eternity absolutely 
independent of all his creatures and all their actions. 

42. What is intended by the distinction betioeen the decretive 
and the preceptive will of God? 

The decretive will of God is God efficaciously purposing the 
certain futurition of events. The preceptive will of God is God, 
as moral governor, commanding his moral creatures to do that 
which he sees it right and wise that they in their circumstances 
should do. 

These are not inconsistent. What he wills as our duty may 
very consistently be different from what he wills as his purpose. 
What it is right for him to permit may be wrong for him to ap- 
prove, or for us to do. 

43. What is meant by the distinction between the secret and 
revealed will of God ? 

The secret will of God is his decretive will, called secret, be- 
cause although it is sometimes revealed to man in the prophecies 
and promises of the Bible, yet it is for the most part hidden in 
God. 

The revealed will of God is his perceptive will, which is 
always clearly set forth as the rule of our duty. — Deut. xxix., 29. 

44. In what sense do the Arminians maintain the distinction 
between the antecedent and consequent will of God, and what are 
the objections to their view of the subject ? 

This is a distinction invented by the schoolmen, and adopted 



118 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

by the Arminians, for reconciling the will of God with their 
theory of the free agency of man. 

They call that an antecedent act of God's will which precedes 
the action of the creature, e. g., before Adam sinned God willed 
him to be happy. They call that a consequent act of God's will 
which followed the act of the creature, and is consequent upon 
that act, e. g., after Adam sinned God willed him to suffer the 
penalty due to his sin. 

It is very evident that this distinction does not truly repre- 
sent the nature of God's will, and its relation to the acts of his 
creatures : first, God is eternal, and therefore there can be no 
distinction in his acts as to time ; second, God is eternally om- 
niscient and omnipotent. If he wills anything, therefore, he 
must from the beginning will the means to accomplish it, and 
thus secure the attainment of the end willed. Otherwise God 
must have, at the same time, two inconsistent wills with regard 
to the same object. The truth is that God, eternally and un- 
changeably, by one comprehensive act of will, willed all that 
happened to Adam from beginning to end in the precise order 
and succession in which each event occurred ; third, God is in- 
finitely independent. It is degrading to God to conceive of him 
as first willing that which he has no power to effect, and then 
changing his will consequently to the independent acts of his 
creatures. 

It is true, indeed, that because of the natural limits of our 
capacities we necessarily conceive of the several intentions of 
God's one, eternal, indivisible purpose, as sustaining a certain 
logical, (not temporal,) relation to each other as principle and 
consequent. Thus we conceive of God's first (in logical order) 
decreeing to create man, then to permit him to fall, then to elect 
some to everlasting life, and then to provide a redemption. — • 
Turrettin. 

45. In what sense do Arminians hold, the distinction betiveen 
the absolute and conditional ivill of God, and what are the objec- 
tions to that view ? 

In their view that is the absolute will of God which is sus- 
pended upon no condition without himself, e. g., his decree to 
create man. That is the conditional will of God which is sus- 



INFINITE WILL. 119 

pended upon a condition, e. g., his decree to save those that be- 
lieve, i. e. } on condition of their faith. 

It is evident that this view is entirely inconsistent with the 
nature of God as an eternal, self-existent, independent being, in- 
finite in all his perfections. It degrades him to the position of 
being simply a coordinate part of the creation, mutually limiting 
and being limited by the creature. 

The mistake results from detaching a fragment of God's will 
from the one whole, all-comprehensive eternal purpose. It is 
evident that, when properly viewed as eternal and one, God's 
purpose must comprehend all conditions, as well as their conse- 
quents. God's will is suspended upon no condition, but he eter- 
nally wills the event as suspended upon its condition, and its 
condition as determining the event. 

It is admitted by all that God's preceptive will, as expressed 
in commands, promises, and threatenings, is often suspended upon 
condition. If we believe we shall certainly be saved. This is the 
relation which God has immutably established between faith as 
the condition, and salvation as the consequent, i. e., faith is the 
condition of salvation. But this is something very different from 
saying that the faith of Paul was the condition of God's eternal 
purpose to save him, because the same purpose determined the 
faith as the condition, and the salvation as its consequent. See 
further, Chapter IX., on the decrees. 

46. In what sense is the will of God said to be eternal ? 

It is one eternal, unsuccessive, all-comprehensive act, absolutely 
determining either to effect or to permit all things, in all of their 
relations, conditions, and successions, which ever were, are, or 
ever will be. 

47. In what sense may the will of God be said to be the rule- 
of righteousness ? 

It is evident that in the highest sense, with respect to God; 
willing, his mere will can not be regarded as the ultimate ground 
of all righteousness, any more than it can be as the ultimate 
ground of all wisdom. Because, in that case, it would follow,, 
first, that there would be no essential difference between right 
and wrong in themselves, but only a difference arbitrarily consti- 



120 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

tuted by God himself ; and, second, that it would be senseless 
to ascribe righteousness to God, for then that would be merely to 
say that he wills as he wills. The truth is, that his will acts as 
his infinitely righteous wisdom sees to be right. 

On the other hand, God's revealed will is to us the absolute 
and ultimate rule of righteousness, alike when he commands 
things in themselves indifferent, and thus makes them right, as 
when he commands things in themselves essentially right, be- 
cause they are right. 

THE INFINITE JUSTICE OF GOD. 

48. What is meant by the distinctions absolute and relative, 
rector al, distributive, and punitive or vindictive justice of God ? 

The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral perfection or 
universal righteousness of his own being. 

The relative justice of God is his infinitely righteous nature, 
viewed as exercised in his relation to his moral creatures, as their 
moral governor. 

This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exercised gen- 
erally in administering the affairs of his universal government, in 
providing for and governing his creatures and their actions. It 
is called distributive, when viewed as exercised in giving unto 
each creature his exact proportionate due of rewards or punish- 
ment. It is called punitive or vindictive, when viewed as de- 
manding and inflicting the adequate and proportionate punish- 
ment of all sin, because of its intrinsic ill desert. 

49. What are the different opinions as to the nature of the 
punitive justice of God, i. e., what are the different reasons as- 
signed why God punishes sin ? 

The Socinians deny the punitive justice of God altogether, 
and maintain that he punishes sin simply for the good of the in- 
dividual sinner, and of society, only so far as it may be interested 
in his restraint or improvement. The new school theologians, 
■maintaining the governmental theory of the Atonement, hold 
that God punishes sin not because of a changeless principle in 
himself demanding its punishment, but for the good of the uni- 
verse, on. the basis of great and changeless principles of govern- 



INFINITE JUSTICE. 121 

mental policy. Thus resolving justice into a form of general 
benevolence. — See Bernan on the Atonement. 

Some hold that the necessity for the punishment of sin is only 
hypothetical^ i. e., results only from the eternal decree of God. 

The true view is that God is immutably determined by his 
own eternal and essential righteousness to visit every sin with a 
proportionate punishment. 

50. How may it be argued from the independence and absolute 
self -sufficiency of God, that punitive justice is an essential attri- 
bute of his nature ? 

It is inconsistent with these essential attributes to conceive 
of God as obliged to any course of action by the external exigen- 
cies of his creation. Both the motive and the end of his action 
must be in himself. If he punishes sin because determined so to 
do by the principles of his own nature, then he acts indepen- 
dently. But if he resorts to this merely as the necessary means 
of restraining and governing his creatures, then their actions 
control his. 

51. What argument in support of this doctrine may be drawn 
from the instinctive sense of justice which is essentially inherent 
in our nature ? 

Man, especially as to his moral nature, was created in the 
image of God. We necessarily refer to him in an infinite degree 
our highest ideal of moral excellence. Conscience, as the organ 
of the moral law in our hearts, echoes the voice, and discovers 
to us the moral character of the great Lawgiver. 

Now, the universal testimony of the human conscience is, that 
ill desert is of the essence of sin : that, irrespective of any gen- 
eral consequences to society, the malefactor deserves punishment; 
and that no amount of public benefit can justify the judicial in- 
jury of the innocent. This is implied in all human laws, in all 
superstitious fears, and in the penances and expiatory sacrifices 
which, in one form or another, have constituted a prominent ele- 
ment in all religions. 

52. How may this principle be inferred from God's love of 
holiness and hatred of sin ? 



122 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

If the reason for God's punishing sin was founded simply in 
his own arbitrary will, then he could not be said to hate sin, but 
only to love his own will. Or if his reason for punishing sin 
rested solely upon governmental considerations, then he could not 
be strictly said to hate sin, but only its consequences. 

But both our consciences and Scripture teach positively that 
God does hate sin and love holiness for their own sakes. — Hab. 
i., 13 ; Ps. v., 4, 5 ; xlv., 6, 7 ; cxlv., 17 ; Prov. xi., 20 ; Deut, 
iv., 24. 

To deny this doctrine is to deny the very essence of moral 
goodness, to resolve righteousness into prudence, and right into 
advantage. 

53. How may it be proved from what the Scriptures say of 
the death of Christ ? 

The Scriptures teach that our sins were laid upon Christ ; 
that he was made sin ; that he suffered the just for the unjust 
that God might justly justify the unjust. — Isa. liii., 5-11 ; Eom. 
iii., 24-26 ; Gal. iii., 13, 14 ; 1 Pet. iii., 18 ; also see Chapter 
XXII. But if the necessity for the punishment of sin arises 
simply from the arbitrary will of God, then the sacrifice of Christ 
involved no punishment of sin at all, but a mere gratification of 
God's arbitrary will. Or if, on the other hand, it derives its 
necessity purely from govermental considerations, i. e., from the 
necessity of restraining sinners and preventing the spread of sin 
by manifesting to the universe a stupendous evidence that sin 
shall be punished, what would this be but to make the awful 
death of Christ a well-intentioned fiction. For if Christ died, 
not because all sin intrinsically deserves punishment, not because 
there is an immutable principle in God demanding its punish- 
ishment, but only that further sin may be prevented, then sin 
was not punished. Yet the Scriptures declare that it was. But 
if our doctrine be true, that God is immutably determined to 
punish all sin, then we can understand why, without the shed- 
ding of blood, there can be no remission, and a sufficient reason 
is given for the awful sacrifice of the incarnate Word. 

54. How may it be proved from the law of God ? 

The penalty is as essential an element of the law as the pre- 



INFINITE GOODNESS. 123 

eept, and together they constitute one inseparable and perfect 
rule of moral rectitude. The language of the law is, " the soul 
that sinneth it shall die." Now, if this rule be based upon the 
mere will of God, then it is no revelation of his moral nature, and 
no display of his essential righteousness. If, on the other hand, 
it is based on mere governmental considerations of general advan- 
tage, then there remains no distinction between right and wrong. 
We hold, however, that the one all-perfect law exhibits at once 
what God's infinitely perfect righteousness determines him to 
demand of his moral creatures, and in case of disobedience to 
inflict. 

THE INFINITE GOODNESS OF GOD. 

55. What distinctions are signified by the terms benevolence, 
complacency, mercy, and grace ? 

The infinite goodness of God is a glorious perfection which 
preeminently characterizes his nature, and which he, in an in- 
finitely wise, righteous, and sovereign manner, exercises towards 
his creatures in various modes according to their relations and 
conditions. 

Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It 
embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on 
account of sin, and provides for their welfare. 

The love of complacency is that approving affection with 
which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image 
and reflection of them in his creatures, especially in the sanctified 
subjects of the new creation. 

God's mercy, of which the more passive forms are pity and 
compassion, is the divine goodness exercised with respect to the 
miseries of his creatures, feeling for them, and making provision 
for their relief, and in the case of impenitent sinners, leading to 
long-suffering patience. 

The grace of God is his goodness seeking to communicate his 
favors, and, above all, the fellowship of his own life and blessed- 
ness to his moral creatures, who, as creatures, must be destitute 
of all merit, and preeminently his electing love, securing at infinite 
cost the blessedness of its objects, who, as sinful creatures, were 
positively ill deserving. 



124 THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. 

56. What are the sources of our knowledge of the fact that 
God is benevolent ? 

1st. Keason. Benevolence is an essential element of moral 
perfection. God is infinitely perfect, and therefore infinitely 
benevolent. 

2d. Experience and observation. The wisdom of God in de- 
signing, and the power of God in executing, in the several spheres 
of creation, providence, and revealed religion, have evidently been 
constantly determined by benevolent intentions. 

3d. The direct assertions of Scripture. — Ps. clxv., 8, 9 ; 1 
John iv., 8. 

57. How may it be proved that God is gracious and willing 
to forgive sin ? 

Neither reason nor conscience can ever raise a presumption on 
this subject. It is the evident duty of fellow-creatures mutually to 
forgive injuries^ but we have nothing to do with forgiving sin as sin. 

It appears plain that there can be no moral principle making 
it essential for a sovereign ruler to forgive sin as transgression of 
law. All that reason or conscience can assure us of in that regard 
is, that sin can not be forgiven without an atonement. The gra- 
cious affection which should prompt such a ruler to provide an 
atonement, must, from its essential nature, be perfectly free and 
sovereign, and therefore it can be known only so far as it is gra- 
ciously revealed. The gospel is, therefore, good news confirmed by 
signs and wonders. — Ex. xxxiv., 6, 7 ; Eph. i., 7-9. 

58. What are the different theories or assumptions on which 
it has been attempted to reconcile the existence of sin with the 
goodness of God ? 

1st. It has been argued by some that free agency is essential 
to a moral system, and that absolute independence of will is 
essential to free agency. That to control the wills of free agents 
is no more an object of power than the working of contradictions; 
and consequently God, although omnipotent, could not prevent 
sin in a moral system without violating its nature. — See Dr. K". 
W. Taylor's Concio ad Clerum, 1828. 

2d. Others have argued that sin was permitted by God in in- 



INFINITE GOODNESS. 125 

finite wisdom as the necessary means to the largest possible meas- 
ure of happiness in the universe as a whole. 

On both of these we remark — 

1st. That the first theory above cited is founded on a false 
view of the conditions of human liberty and responsibility, (see 
below, Chapter XVIII.) ; and, further, that it grossly limits the 
power of God by representing him as desiring and attempting 
what he can not effect, and that it makes him dependent upon his 
creatures. 

2d. With reference to the second theory it should be remem- 
bered that God's own glory, and not the greatest good of the 
universe, is the great end of God in creation and providence. 

3d. The permission of sin, in its relation both to the righteous- 
ness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all at- 
tempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowl- 
edge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though 
not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assuredly a most 
wise, righteous, and merciful permission ; and that it shall re- 
dound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen. 

59. How can the attributes of goodness and justice be sliown 
to be consistent ? 

Goodness and justice are the several aspects of one un- 
changeable, infinitely wise, and sovereign moral perfection. God 
is not sometimes merciful and sometimes just, nor so far merciful 
and so far just, but he is eternally infinitely merciful and just. 
Kelatively to the creature this infinite perfection of nature pre- 
sents different aspects, as is determined by the judgment which 
infinite wisdom delivers in each individual case. 

Even in our experience these attributes of our moral nature 
are found not to be inconsistent in principle, though our want 
both of wisdom and knowledge, a sense of our own unworthiness, 
and a mere physical sympathy, often sadly distract our judgments 
as well as our hearts in adjusting these principles to the individual 
cases of life. 

god's infinite tkuth. 

60. What is truth considered as a divine attribute ? 

The truth of God in its widest sense is a perfection which 



126 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

qualifies all his intellectual and moral attributes. His knowledge 
is infinitely true in relation to its objects, and bis wisdom un- 
biassed either by prejudice or passion. His justice and his good- 
ness in all their exercises are infinitely true to the perfect standard 
of his own nature. In all outward manifestations of his perfec- 
tions to his creatures, God is always true to his nature — always 
self-consistently divine. This attribute in its more special sense 
qualifies all God's intercourse with his rational creatures. He is 
true to us as well as to himself ; and thus is laid the foundation 
of all faith, and therefore of all knowledge. It is the foundation 
of all confidence, first, in our senses ; second, in our intellect 
and conscience ; third, in any authenticated, supernatural reve- 
lation. 

The two forms in which this perfection is exercised in relation 
to us are, first, his entire truth in all his communications; second, 
his perfect sincerity in undertaking and faithfulness in discharg- 
ing all his engagements. 

61. How can the truth of God he reconciled with the apparent 
non-performance of some of his threatenings ? 

The promises and threatenings of God are sometimes absolute, 
when they are always infallibly fulfilled in the precise sense in 
which he intended them. They are often also conditional, made 
to depend upon the obedience or repentance of the creature. — 
Jonah iii., 4, 10 ; Jer. xviii., 7, 8. This condition may be either 
expressed or implied, because the individual case is understood to 
be, of course, governed by the general principle that genuine 
repentance and faith delivers from every threatening and secures 
every promise. 

62. How can the invitations and exhortations of the Scrip- 
tures, addressed to those whom God does not propose to save, be 
reconciled with his sincerity ? 

See above, (question 42,) the distinction between God's pre- 
ceptive and his decretive will. His invitations and exhortations 
are addressed to all men in good faith : first, because it is every 
man's duty to repent and believe, and God's preceptive will that 
that every man should ; second, because nothing ever prevents 
the obedience of any sinner, except his own unwillingness; third, 



INFINITE SOVEREIGNTY. 127 

because in every case in which the condition is fulfilled the pro- 
mise implied will be performed ; fourth, God never has promised 
to enable every man to believe ; fifth, these invitations and ex- 
hortations are not addressed to the reprobate as such, but to all 
sinners as such, with the avowed purpose of saving thereby the elect. 

THE INFINITE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 

63. What is meant by the sovereignty of God ? 

His absolute right to govern and dispose of all his creatures, 
simply according to his own good pleasure. 

64. Prove that this right is asserted in Scripture. 

Dan. iv., 25, 35 ; Kev. iv., 11 ; 1 Tim. vi., 15 ; Rom. ix., 
15-23. 

65. On ivhat does the absolute sovereignty of God rest ? 

1st. His infinite superiority in being and in all his perfections 
to any and to all his creatures. 

2d. As creatures they were created out of nothing, and are 
now sustained in being by his power, for his own glory and ac- 
cording to his own good pleasure. — Rom. xi., 36. 

3d. His infinite benefits to us, and our dependence upon and 
blessedness in him, are reasons why we should not only recognize, 
but rejoice, in this glorious truth. The Lord reigneth, let the 
earth rejoice. 

66. Is there any sense in which there are limits to the sov- 
ereignty of God ? 

The sovereignty of God, viewed abstractly as one attribute 
among many, must of course be conceived of as qualified by all 
the rest. It can not be otherwise than an infinitely wise, right- 
eous, and merciful sovereignty. 

But God, viewed concretely as an infinite sovereign, is abso- 
lutely unlimited by any thing without himself. " He doeth 
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the in- 
habitants of the earth." — Dan. iv, 35. 

THE INFINITE HOLINESS OF GOD. 

67. What is meant by the holiness of God ? 

The holiness of God is not to be conceived of as one attribute 



12 S THE ATTEEBrTES OP GOD. 

among others ; it is rather a ,f::::' term representing tine bob- 
ception of his consummate perfection and total glory. It : ; hie 
infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intelligence and 
: There ie :. glory :: eax& attribut 
_~ ry ;: the whole together ~~-t intellectual nature it 
essential basic of the moral Infinite moral y : :: the crown 

jfih I Holiness ia the total glory thm 

Holiness in th the total | affection of an mfhi 

righteous intellig moa Holiness in the aeatnre is not mac moral 
perfection, but d ::" the seated nature of moral agents 

their kind, in spiritual union and fellowship with the in- 
finite C rea : : i — 1 John i.. 3. 

The word holiness, ae applied :: God in Scripture, i 
first, moral purity. — Lev. xi.. 44 : Ps. cxlv.. 1" - / fan tran- 
acendently august and venerable majesty — Isa — .. 3 : Ps. m: 
3 : Rev. iv. 3 8. 

T; u sanctify the Lord e., to make him holy istx declare 
and adore his holiness I — aueratmg his august majesty whe: 
and whereinsoevei hie person or chara:: : : is 3 — Isa. 

viii.. 13; xxix.. 23 : Exek xxxviii. 23 : Matt. vi.. 9 : 1 Fel 
hi.. 15. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE HOLY TRINITY. 

1. What is the etymology and meaning of the word Trinity, 
and when was it introduced into the language of the church ? 

This word, in its Latin form, Trinitas, is derived from the 
adjective trinus, three-fold, or three in one, and it thus exactly 
expresses the divine mystery of three persons in the unity of one 
Godhead. 

It is said to have taken its place in the language of Christian 
theology, for the first time, in an apologetic work of Theophylus, 
bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from A. D. 168 to A. D. 183.— See 
Mosheim's Eccle. Hist., Vol I., p. 121, Note 7. 

2. What is the theological meaning of the term substantia 
(substance), and what change has occurred in its usage ? 

Substantia, as now used, is equivalent to essence, independent 
being. Thus, in the Godhead, the three persons are the same in 
in substance, i. e., of one and the same indivisible, numerical 
essence. 

The word was at first used by one party in the church as- 
equivalent to subsistentia (subsistence), or mode of existence. 
In which sense, while there is but one essence, there are three 
substantias or persons, in the Godhead. — See Turrettin, Tom. I., 
locus iii, ques. 23. 

3. What is the theological meaning of the word subsistentia- 
(subsistence) ? 

It is used to signify that mode of existence which distin- 
guishes one individual thing from every other individual thing, 
one person from eveiy other person. As applied to* the doctrine 



130 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

of the Trinity, subsistence is that mode of existence which is 
peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each consti- 
tutes the one essence a distinct person. 

4. What is the New Testament sense of the word viroaraaig, 
(hypostasis) ? 

This word, as to its etymology, is precisely equivalent to sub- 
stance ; it comes from v^Igttjiil, " to stand under." 

In the New Testament it is used five times — 

1st. Figuratively, for confidence, or that state of mind which 
is conscious of a firm foundation, 2 Cor. ix., 4 ; xi., 17 ; Heb. iii., 
14, which faith realizes, Heb. xi., 1. 

2d. Literally, for essential nature, Heb. i., 3. — See Sampson's 
Com. on Heb. 

5. In what sense is this word used by the ecclesiastical 
writers ? 

Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in connection 
with the doctrine of the Trinity, was generally used in its primary 
sense, as equivalent to substance. It is used in this sense in the 
creed published by the Council of Nice A. D. 325, and again in 
the decrees of the Council of Sardica, in Illyria, A. D. 347. These 
agreed in affirming that there is but one hypostasis in the Grod- 
head. Some, however, at that time understanding the word in 
the sense of person, its usage was changed by general consent, 
chiefly through the influence of Athanasius, and ever since it has 
been established in theological language in the sense of person, in 
contradistinction to dvoia, essence. It has been transferred into 
the English language in the form of an adjective, to designate the 
hypostatical or personal union of two natures in the God man. 

6. What is essential to personality, and how is the word per- 
son to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ? 

The Latin word, " suppositum," signifies a distinct individual 
existence, e. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is "supposi- 
tum intellectuale," a distinct individual existence, to which be- 
longs the properties of reason and free will. Throughout the 
entire range of our experience and observation of personal exist- 
ence among creatures, personality rests upon and appears to be 



DEFINITIONS. 131 

inseparable from distinction of essence. Every distinct person 
is a distinct soul, with or without a body. 

That distinguishing mode of existence which constitutes the 
one divine essence coordinately three separate persons, is of course 
an infinite mystery which we can not understand, and therefore 
can not adequately define, and which we can know only so far as 
it is explicitly revealed. All that we know is, that this distinc- 
tion, which is called personality, embraces all those incommuni- 
cable properties which eternally belong to Father, Son, or Holy 
Ghost separately, and not to all in common ; that it lays the 
foundation for their concurrence in counsel, their mutual love and 
action one upon another, as the Father sending the Son, and the 
Father and Son sending the Spirit, and for use of the personal 
pronouns I, thou, he, in the revelation which one divine person 
gives of himself and of the others. 

7. What is meant by the terms upoovoiov (of the same substance), 
and ofioLovatov, (of similar substance) ? 

In the first general council of the church which, consisting of 
three hundred and eighteen bishops, was called together by the 
Emperor Constantine at Nice, in Bithynia, A. D. 325, there were 
found to be three great parties representing different opinions 
concerning the Trinity. 

1st. The orthodox party, who maintained the opinion now 
held by all Christians, that the Lord Jesus is, as to his divine na- 
ture, of the same identical substance with the Father. These 
insisted upon applying to him the definite term d{ioovaiov y (ho- 
moousion), compounded of 6fi6g y same, and ovaia, substance, to 
teach the great truth that the three persons of the Godhead are 
one God, because they are of the same numerical essence. 

2d. The Arians, who maintained that the Son of God is the 
greatest of all creatures, more like God than any other, the only- 
begotten son of God, created before all worlds, through whom God 
created all other things, and in that sense only divine. 

3d. The middle party, styled Semi- Arians, who confessed that 
the Son was not a creature, but denied that he was in the same 
sense God as the Father is. They held that the Father is the 
only absolute self-existent God ; yet that from eternity he, by his 
own free will, caused to proceed from himself a divine person of 



132 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

like nature and properties. They denied, therefore, that the Son 
was of the same substance (homoousion) with the Father, but 
admitted that he was of an essence truly similar, and derived from 
the Father (homoiousion, b\ioiovoiov^ from, ofiotog, like, and ovuia^ 
substance). 

The opinions of the first, or orthodox party, prevailed at that 
council, and have ever since been represented by the technical 
phrase, homoousian. 

For the creed promulgated by that council, see Appendix A. 

8. What are the several propositions essentially involved in 
the doctrine of the Trinity $ 

1st. There is but one God, and this God is one, i. e., indivisible. 

2d. That the one indivisible divine essence, as a whole, exists 
eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost ; that each 
person possesses the whole essence, and is constituted a distinct 
person by certain incommunicable properties, not common to him 
with the others. 

3d. The distinction between these three is a personal distinc- 
tion, in the sense that it occasions (1.) the use of the personal 
pronouns, I, thou, he, (2.) a concurrence in counsel, (3.) a dis- 
tinct order of operation. 

4th. These persons are distinguished as first, second, and 
third, to express an order indicated in Scripture ; (1.) of subsist- 
ence, insomuch as the Father is neither begotten nor proceedeth, 
while the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit 
eternally proceedeth from the Father and the Son ; (2.) of opera- 
tion, insomuch that the first person sends and operates through 
the second, and the first and second send and operate through the 
third. 

In order, therefore, to establish this doctrine in all its parts 
by the testimony of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to prove 
the following propositions in their order : 

1st. That God is one. 

2d. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was truly 
God, yet a distinct person from the Father. 

3d. That the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet a distinct person, 

4th. That the Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons in 
one Godhead, 



SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENT. 133 

5th. It will remain to gather what the Scriptures reveal as to 
the eternal and necessary relations which these three divine per- 
sons sustain to each other. These are distributed under the fol- 
lowing heads : (1.) The relation which the second person sustains 
to the first, or the eternal generation of the Son ; (2.) the relation 
which the third person sustains to the first and second, or the 
eternal procession of the Holy Ghost ; and, (3.) their personal 
properties and order of operation, ad extra. 

I. God is one, and there is but one God. 
The proof of this proposition, from reason and Scripture, has 
been fully set forth above, in chap, vii, on the Attributes of God, 
questions 5-10. 

The answer to the question, How the coordinate existence of 
three distinct persons in the Trinity can be reconciled with this 
fundamental doctrine of the divine unity is given below in ques- 
tion 85 of this chapter. 

II. Jesus or Nazareth, as to his divine nature, is truly 
God, and yet a distinct person from the Father. 

9. What different views have been entertained with respect to 
the person of Christ ? 

The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he 
from eternity has existed as the coequal Son of the Father, con- 
stituted of the same infinite self-existent essence with the Father 
and the Holy Ghost. 

The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present consti- 
tuted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. 20. An account 
of the different heretical opinions as to his person are given below, 
in questions 87-91, of this chapter. 

10. How far did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the 
Messiah to appear as a divine person ? 

When Christ appeared, it is certain that the great mass of the 
Jewish people had ceased to entertain the Scriptural expectation 
of a divine Saviour, and only desired a temporal prince, in a pre- 
eminent sense, a favorite of heaven. It is said, however, that 
scattered hints in some of the rabbinical writings indicate that 



134 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

some of the more learned and spiritual still continued true to the 
ancient faith. 

11. How may the preexist ence of Jesus before his birth by the 
Virgin be proved from Scripture ? 

1st. Those passages which say that he is the creator of the world. 
—John i., 3 ; Col. I, 15-18. 

2d. These passages which directly declare that he was with the 
Father before the world was ; that he was rich, and possessed 
glory. — John i., 1, 15, 30 ; vi., 62 ; viii., 58 ; xvii., 5 ; 2 Cor. 
viii., 9. 

3d. Those passages which declare that he " came into the 
world," " came down from heaven." — John iii., 13, 31 ; xiii., 3 ; 
xvi., 28 ; 1 Cor. xv., 47. 

12. How can it be proved that the Jehovah who manifested 
himself as the God of the Jews under the old economy was the 
second person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus of 
Nazareth ? 

As this fact is not affirmed in any single statement of Scrip- 
ture, it can be established only by a careful comparison of many 
passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill's Lects., Book 
III., ch. v., may be summed up as follows : 

1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are 
referred to one person. Compare Gen. xviii., 2, 17 ; xxviii., 13 ; 
xxxii., 9, 31 ; Ex. iii., 14, 15 ; xiii., 21 ; xx., 1, 2 ; xxv., 21 ; 
Deut. iv., 33, 36, 39 ; Neh. ix., 7-28. This one person is called 
Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time 
angel, or one sent. Compare Gen. xxxi., 11, 13 ; xlviii., 15, 16 ; 
Hosea xii., 2, 5. Compare Ex. iii., 14, 15, with Acts vii., 30-35 ; 
and Ex. xiii., 21, with Ex. xiv., 19 ; and Ex. xx., 1, 2, with Acts 
vii., 38 ; Is. lxiii., 7, 9. 

2d. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John i., 
18 ; vi., 46) : neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any 
other ; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John i., 1, 2), and sent 
(John v., 36). 

3d. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or 
one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the prophets 
as the Saviour of Israel, and the author of the new dispensation. 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 135 

In Zech. ii., 10, 11, one Jehovah is represented as sending another 
See Micah v., 2. In Mai. iii., 1, it is declared that " the Lord/' 
" the messenger of the covenant/' shall come to his own temple. 
This applied to Jesus (Mark i., 2). Compare Ps. xcvii., 7, with 
Heh. i., 6 ; and Is. vi., 1-5, with John xii., 41. 

4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages in 
the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Ps. lxxviii., 
15, 16, 35, with 1 Cor. x., 9. 

5th. The Church is one under all dispensations, and Jesus 
from the beginning is the Redeemer and Head of the Church ; 
it is, therefore, most consistent with all that has been revealed to 
us as to the offices of the three divine persons in the scheme of 
redemption, to admit the view here presented. See also John 
viii., 56, 58 ; Matt, xxiii., 37 ; 1 Pet. i., 10, 11. 

13. What evidence of the divinity of the Messiah does the 2d 
Psalm present ? 

It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive 
universal power over the whole earth and its inhabitants. All 
are exhorted to submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his 
anger. In Acts xiii., 33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to Christ. 

14. What evidence is furnished by the 45th Psalm ? 

The ancient Jews considered this Psalm addressed to the Mes- 
siah, and the fact is established by Paul (Heb. i., 8, 9). Here, 
therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal. 

15. What evidence is furnished by Psalm 110 ? 

That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is proved by Christ 
(Matt, xxii., 43, 44), and by Paul (Heb. v., 6 ; vii., 17. He is 
here called David's Lord (Adonai), and invited to sit at the right 
hand of Jehovah until all his enemies be made his footstool. 

16. What evidence is furnished by Isaiah ix., 6 ? 

This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- 
firmed by Matt, iv, 14-16. It declares explicitly that the child 
born " is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince 
of peace." 



136 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

17. What is the evidence furnished by Micah v., 2 ? 

This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which is 
confirmed by Matt. ii., 6, and John vii., 42. The passage declares 
that his goings forth have been " from ever of old/' i. e., from 
eternity. 

18. What evidence is furnished by Malachi in., 1, 2 ? 

This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- 
firmed by Mark i., 2. 

The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never 
applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which 
was sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called his 
temple. And in verse 2d, a divine work of judgment is ascribed 
to him. 

19. What evidence is afforded by the ivay in-which the writers 
of the New Testament apply the writings of the Old Testament to 
Christ ? 

The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Testa- 
ment to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers in- 
tended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such. 

Psalm 102 is evidently an address to the supreme Lord, 
ascribing to him eternity, creation, providential government, wor- 
ship, and the hearing and answering of prayer. But Paul (Heb. 
i., 10-12) affirms Christ to be the subject of the address. In Is. 
xlv., 20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme Lord- 
ship. But Paul, in Bom. xiv., 11, quotes a part of Jehovah's 
declaration with regard to himself, to prove that we must all 
stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Compare also Is. vi., 
3, with John xii., 41. 

20. What is the general character of the evidence upon this 
subject afforded by the New Testament ? 

This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every individ- 
ual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New Testa- 
ment, either by direct assertion or by necessary indication, as 
may be ascertained by every honest reader for himself. The mass 
of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately interwoven 
with every other theme in every passage, that I have room here 



DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 137 

to present only a general sample of the evidence, classified under 
the usual heads. 

21. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine titles to 
Christ, 

John i., 1 ; xx., 28 ; Acts xx., 28 ; Kom. ix., 5 ; 2 Thess. i., 
12 ; 1 Tim. iii. ; 16 ; Titus ii., 13 ; Heb. i., 8 ; 1 John, v., 20. 

22. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine perfections 
to Christ. 

Eternity. — John i., 2 ; viii., 58 ; xvii., 5 ; Eev. i., 8, 17, 18 ; 
xxii., 13. 

Immutability. — Heb. i., 11, 12, and xiii., 8. 

Omnipresence. — John iii., 13 ; Matt, xviii., 20 ; xxviii., 20. 

Omniscience. — Matt, xi., 27 ; John ii., 23-25; xxi., 17; Kev. 
ii., 23. 

Omnipotence. — John v., 17 ; Heb. i., 3 ; Eev. i., 8 ; xi., 17. 

23. Prove that the Neiu Testament ascribes divine works to 
Christ. 

Creation. — John i., 3, 10 ; Col. i., 16, 17. 

Preservation and Providence. — Heb. i., 3 ; Col. i., 17 ; Matt, 
xxviii., 18. 

Miracles. — John v., 21, 36. 

Judgment.— 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Matt, xxv., 31, 32 ; John v., 22. 

A work of grace, including election. — John xiii., 18. 

Sanctification, Eph. v., 26 ; sending the Holy Ghost, John 
xvi., 7, 14 ; giving eternal life, John x., 28 ; Turret tin, Tom. I., 
L. 3, Q. 28. 

24. Prove that the New Testament teaches that supreme wor- 
ship shoidd be paid to Christ. 

Matt, xxviii., 19 ; John v., 22, 23 ; xiv., 1 ; Acts vii., 59, 60; 
1 Cor. i., 2 ; 2 Cor., xiii., 14 ; Phil, ii., 9, 10 ; Heb. i., 6 ; Kev. 
L, 5, 6 ; v., 11, 12 ; vii., 10. 

25. Prove that the Son, although God, is a distinct person 
from the Father. 

This fact is so plainly taught in Scripture, and so universally 



138 THE HOLT TRINITY. 

implied, that the Sabellian system, which denies it, has never 
obtained any general currency. 

Christ is sent by the Father, comes from him, returns to him, 
receives his commandment, does his will, loves him, is loved by 
him, addresses prayer to him, uses the pronouns thou and he 
when speaking to and of him. This is necessarily implied, also, 
in the relative titles, Father and Son. See the whole New Tes- 
tament. 

III. The Holy Ghost is truly God, yet a distinct 
person. 

26. What sects have held that the Holy Ghost is a creature ? 

The divinity of the Holy Ghost is so clearly revealed in Scrip- 
ture that very few have dared to call it in question. The early 
controversies of the orthodox with the Arians precedent and con- 
sequent to the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to such a degree ab- 
sorbed the mind of both parties with the question of the divinity 
of the Son, that very little prominence was given in that age to 
questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arius, however, is said to 
have taught that as the Son is the first and greatest creature of 
the Father, so the Holy Ghost is the first and greatest creature 
of the Son ; a fcriofia KTiufxaro^j a creature of a creature. — See 
Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. i., pp. 416-420. 

Some of the disciples of Macedonius, who lived about the 
middle of the fourth century, are said to have held that the Holy 
Ghost was not Supreme God. These were condemned by the 
second General Council, which met at Constantinope A. D. 381. 
This council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding 
definite clauses to the simple reference which the ancient creed 
had made to the Holy Ghost. — See the Creed of the Council of 
Constantinople, in Appendix A. 

27. By whom has the Holy Spirit been regarded merely as 
an energy of God ? 

Those early heretical sects, generally styled Monarchians and 
Patripassians, all with subordinate distinctions taught that there 
was but one person as well as one essence in the Godhead, who, 
in different relations, is called Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. In 



DIVINITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT. 139 

the sixteenth century Socinus, who taught that Jesus Christ was 
a mere man, maintained that the term Holy Ghost is in Scrip- 
ture used as a designation of God's energy, when exercised in a 
particular way. This is now the opinion of all modern Uni- 
tarians and Rationalists. 

28. How can it be proved that all the attributes of personality 
are ascribed to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures ? 

The attributes of personality are such as intelligence, volition, 
separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns I, thou, he, when 
speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself and the 
Father : " I will send him/' " He will testify of me." " Whom 
the Father will send in my name." Thus he is sent ; he testi- 
fies ; he takes of the things of Christ, and shows- them to us. 
He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because he searches 
the deep things of God. He works all supernatural gifts, divid- 
ing to every man as he wills. — John xiv., 17, 26; xv., 26; 1 Cor. 
ii., 10, 11 ; xii., 11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, intercedes. — 
John xvi., 7-13 ; Rom. viii., 26. 

29. How may his personality be argued from the offices which 
he is said in the Scriptures to execute ? 

The New Testament throughout all its teachings discovers 
the plan of redemption as essentially involving the agency of the 
Holy Ghost in applying the salvation which it was the work of 
the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and apostles ; 
he teaches and sanctifies the church; he selects her officers, quali- 
fying them by the communication of special gifts at his will. He 
the advocate, every Christian is his client. He brings all the 
grace of the absent Christ to us, and gives it effect in our persons 
in every moment of our lives. His personal distinction is ob- 
viously involved in the very nature of these functions which 
he discharges. — Luke xii., 12 ; Acts v., 32 ; xv, 28 ; xvi., 6 ; 
xxviii., 25 ; Rom. xv., 16 ; 1 Cor. ii., 13 ; Heb. ii., 4 ; iii., 7 ; 2 
Pet. i., 21. 

30. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost 
may be deduced from the formula of baptism ? 

Christians are baptized " in the name of the Father, Son, and 



140 THE HOLT TRINITY. 

Holy Ghost." It would be inconsistent with every law of lan- 
guage and reason to speak of the " name" of an energy, or to asso- 
ciate an energy coordinately with two distinct persons. 

31. How may his personality be proved by what is said of 
the sin against the Holy Ghost ? 

In Matt. xii., 31, 32 ; Mark iii., 28, 29 ; Luke xii, 10, this 
sin is called " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Now, blas- 
phemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here distin- 
guished from the same act as committed against the other per- 
sons of the Trinity. 

32. How can such expressions as "giving" and " pouring 
out the Spirit" be reconciled with his personality ? 

These and other similar expressions are used figuratively to 
set forth our participation in the gifts and influences of the Spirit. 
It is one of the most natural and common of all figures to desig- 
nate the gift by the name of the giver. Thus we are said " to 
put on Christ," " to be baptized into Christ," etc. — Eph. v., 30 ; 
Eom. xiii., 14 ; Gal. iii., 27. 

33. Show that the names of God are applied to the Spirit. 

Compare Ex. xvii., 7, and Ps. xcv., 7, with Heb. iii., 7-11. — 
See Acts v., 3, 4. 

34. What divine attribute do the Scriptures ascribe to him ? 
Omnipresence. — Ps. cxxxix., 7 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13. 
Omniscience. — 1 Cor. ii., 10, 11. 

Omnipotence. — Luke i., 35 ; Rom. viii., 11. 

35. What agency in the external world do the Scriptures 
ascribe to him ? 

Creation. — Gen. i., 2 ; Job xxvi., 13 ; Ps. civ., 30. 
The power of working miracles. — Matt, xii., 28 ; 1 Cor. xii., 
9-11. 

36. Hoio is his supreme divinity established by what the 
Scriptures teach of his agency in redemption ? 

He is declared to be the immediate agent in regeneration, 
John iii., 6 ; Titus iii., 5 ; and in the resurrection of our bodies, 



DIRECTLY TAUGHT. 141 

Horn. viii., 11. His agency in the generation of Christ's human 
nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
were exertions of his divine power in preparing the redemption 
which he now applies. 

37. How can such expressions as, u he shall not speak of him- 
self/' be reconciled with his divinity ? 

This and other similar expressions are to be understood as 
referring to the official work of the Spirit ; just as the Son is 
said in his official character to be sent by and to be subordinate 
to the Father. The object of the Holy Ghost, in his official work 
in the hearts of men, is not to reveal the relations of his own per- 
son to the other persons of the Godhead, but simply to reveal 
the mediatorial character and work of Christ. 

IV. The Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons 
in one Godhead. 

38. How is this trinity of persons directly taught in the for- 
mula of baptism ? 

Baptism in the name of God implies the recognition of God's 
divine authority, his covenant engagement to give us eternal life, 
and our engagement to render him divine worship and obedience. 
Christians are baptized thus into covenant relation with three 
persons distinctly named in order. The language necessarily im- 
plies that each name represents a person. The nature of the 
sacrament proves that each person must be divine. — See Matt, 
xxviii., 19. 

39. How is this doctrine directly taught in the formula of the 
apostolical benediction 1 

See 2 Cor. xiii., 14. We have here distinctly named three per- 
sons, and each communicating a separate blessing, according to 
his own order and manner of operation. The benevolence of the 
Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the acquisition, the 
communion of the Holy Ghost in the application of salvation. 
These are three distinct personal names, three distinct modes of 
personal agency, and each equally divine. 



142 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

40. What evidence is afforded by the narrative of Christ's 
baptism ? 

See Matt, iii., 13-17. Here also we have presented to us three 
persons distinctly named and described as severally acting, each 
after his own order. The Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit 
descending like a dove and lighting upon Christ, Christ acknowl- 
edged as the beloved Son of God ascending from the water. 

41. State the argument from John xv., 26, and the context. 

In this passage again we have three persons severally named 
at the same time, and their relative action affirmed. The Son is 
the person speaking of the Father and the Spirit, and claiming 
for himself the right of sending the Spirit. The Father is the 
person from whom the Spirit proceeds. Of the Spirit the Son 
says that "he will come/' "he will be sent," "he proceedeth," 
"he will testify." 

42. What is the state of the evidence with regard to the gen- 
uineness of 1 John v., 7 ? 

I have not room in which to present a synopsis of the argu- 
ment for and against the genuineness of the disputed clause which 
could be of any value. — See Home's Intro., Yol. IV., Part II., 
chapter iv., section 5. 

It will suffice to say — 

1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the 
eighth verse : "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost ; and these three are one. And there are three that bear 
ivitness in earth." 

2d. Learned and pious men are divided in their opinions as to 
the preponderance of the evidence ; the weight of opinion inclining 
against the genuineness of the clause. 

3d. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammatical 
and logical connection of the clause with the rest of the passage 
is so intimate, that for the purpose of edification, in the present 
state of our knowledge, the clause ought to be retained, although 
for the purpose of establishing doctrine, it ought not to be relied 
upon. 

4th. The rejection of this passage does in no degree lessen 



DIRECTLY TAUGHT. 143 

the irresistible weight of evidence of the truth of the orthodox 
doctrine of the Trinity which the Scriptures afford. 

43. What passages in the Old Testament imply the existence 
of more than one person in the Godhead ? 

Mark the use of the plural in the following passages. — Gen. 
i., 26 ; iii.j 22 ; xi., 7 ; Isa. vi., 8. Compare the three-fold repe- 
tition of the name Jehovah (Num. vi., 24-26) with the apostoli- 
cal benediction. — 2 Cor. xiii., 14. Mark also in Isa. vi., 3, the 
threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness. 

44. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as 
a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ? 

In Ps. xlv., 6, 7, we have the Father addressing the Son as 
God, and anointing him. — See also Ps. ex., 1; Isa. xliv., 6, 7, 14. 

The prophecies always set forth the Messiah as a person dis- 
tinct from the Father, and yet he is called " Mighty God," etc.— 
Isa. ix., 6 ; Jer. xxiii., 6. 

45. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit 
as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ? 

Gen. i., 2 ; vi., 3; Ps. civ., 30; exxxix., 7; Job xxvi., 13; Isa. 
xlviii., 16. 

Y. It remains for us to consider what the Scriptures 

TEACH CONCERNING THE ETERNAL AND NECESSARY RELATIONS 
WHICH THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS SUSTAIN TO EACH OTHER. 

(I.) The relation which the second person sustains to 

THE FIRST, OR THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON. 

46. What is the idiomatic use of the FLehrew word is (so?i) ? 

It is used in the sense, 1st, of son ; 2d, of descendant ; hence 
in the plural "children of Israel," for Israelites. Also when 
joined to a name of place or nation to denote inhabitants or 
citizens thereof, as "sons of Zion," etc.; 3d, of pupil, disciple, 
worshipper ; thus "sons of the prophets," (1 Kings xx., 35,) and 
" sons of God," applied, (1.) to kings, Ps. ii., 7 ; (2.) to angels, 
Gen. vi. 2 ; (3.) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deut. 



144 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

xiv., 1; 4th, in combination with substantives, expressing age or 
quality, etc.; thus, "son of years/' for aged, Lev. xii., 6; "son of 
Belial," for worthless fellow, Deut. xiii., 13 ; " son of death," for 
one deserving to die, 1 Sam. xx., 31 ; "a hill son of fatness," 
for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been carried into the 
Greek of the New Testament. — See Gesenius' Heb. Lex. 

47. In what sense are men called " sons of God " in Scrip- 
ture ? 

The general idea embraced in the relation of sonship includes, 
1st, similarity and derivation of nature ; 2d, parental and filial 
love; and 3d, heirship. 

In this general sense all God^ holy, intelligent creatures are 
called his sons. The term is applied in an eminent sense to kings 
and magistrates who receive dominion from God, (Ps. lxxxii., 6,) 
and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual regeneration 
and adoption, (Gal. iii., 26,) the special objects of divine favor, 
(Matt, v., 9,) and are like him, (Matt, v., 45.) When applied to 
creatures, whether men or angels, (Job i., 6,) this word is always 
used in the plural. In the singular it is applied only to the 
second person of the Trinity, with the single exception of its 
application once to Adam, (Luke iii., 38,) when the reason is 
obviously to mark the peculiarity of his derivation from God 
immediately without the intervention of a human father. 

48. What different vieivs with regard to the sonship of Christ 
have been entertained ? 

1st. Some Socinians hold that he is called Son of God only as 
an official title, as it is applied in the plural to ordinary kings 
and magistrates. 

2d. Other Socinians hold that he was called Son of God only 
because he was brought into being by God's supernatural agency, 
and not by ordinary generation. To maintain this they appeal 
to Luke i., 35. For an explanation of this passage see below, 
question 70. 

3d. Arians hold that he is so called because he was created 
by God more in his own likeness than any other creature, and 
first in the order of time. 

4th. The orthodox doctrine is, that Christ is called Son of 



ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 145 

God to indicate his eternal and necessary personal relation in the 
Godhead to the first person, who, to indicate his reciprocal rela- 
tion, is called the Father. 

49. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made 
between the eternal, the ante-mundane, and the mundane genera- 
tion of the Son ? 

1st. By his eternal generation they intended to mark his 
essential relation to the Father as his consuhstantial and eternal 
Son. 

2d. By his ante-mundane generation they meant to signify the 
commencement of the outgoings of his energy, and the manifesta- 
tion of his person beyond the bosom of the Godhead, in the sphere 
of external creation, etc. — Col. i., 15. 

3d. By his mundane generation they intended his supernatural 
birth in the flesh. — Luke i., 35. 

50. What is the distinction luhich some of the fathers made 
between the Xoyog evdiaBerog (ratio insita, reason), and the Xoyog 
7Tpo(popcicog (ratio prolata, reason brought forth, or expressed) ? 

The orthodox fathers used the phrase logos endiathetos to 
designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person, 
dwelling from eternity with the Father. The ground of their use 
of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived existed 
between the relation which the eternal logos (word, or reason),. 
(John i., 1,) sustains to the Father, and the relation which the 
reason of a man sustains to his own rational soul. Thus the 
logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypostatized. 
They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize upon an in- 
comprehensible subject by the influence exerted upon them by the 
Platonic philosophers of that age, who taught a sort of metaphy- 
sical trinity, e. g., that in the one God there were three constitu- 
ent principles, to dyadov, goodness, vovg, intelligence, ipvxrj, vital- 
ity. Their immediate object was to illustrate the essential unity 
of the Trinity, and to prove, against the Arians, the essential 
divinity of the Son, from the application to him by John of the 
epithet Xoyog 6eov. 

By the phrase logos prophoricos they intended to designate 



146 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the 
Father in the work of creation.— See Hill's Lectures. 

The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy of 
this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging that 
the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since he 
came forth from God as the first and highest creation and image 
of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, that the 
phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught pure 
Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but signified 
nothing else than the mind of the Father itself. 

51. How is the doctrine of Christ's sonship stated in the Ni- 
cene and Athanasian creeds ? 

See those creeds in Appendix A. 

52. What is the common statement and explanation of this 
doctrine given by orthodox writers ? 

The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be 
an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of 
nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the 
essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indi- 
visible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or 
change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father's per- 
son, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the 
Father, and the Father in the Son. — See particularly Heb. i., 3 ; 
John x., 38 ; xiv., 11 ; xvii., 21. The principal Scriptural sup- 
port of the doctrine of derivation is John v., 26. — Turrettin, Tom. 
I., L. 3, Q. 29. 

Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe that 
the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation ; that 
it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and Son, and 
by the entire representation given in the Scriptures as to the rela- 
tion and order of the persons of the Godhead, the Father always 
standing for the Godhead considered absolutely ) and they hold 
that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential 
unity of the three persons. The older theologians, therefore, 
styled the Father nnyw 6 sornrog, fountain of Godhead, and atria 
vcov, principle or cause of the Son, while the Son and Holy 
Ghost were both called airiaroi (those depending upon another 
.as their principle or cause). 



ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 147 

They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the 
Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, by saying, 1st, that 
the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, there- 
fore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to them ; and, 
2d 3 that this communication was made by an eternal and necessary 
act of the Father, and not of his mere will. 

53. What is essential to the scriptural doctrine of the eternal 
generation of the Son ? 

In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine there 
is nothing inconsistent with revealed truth. The idea of deri- 
vation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the Father, 
appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed facts than 
a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, it should be 
held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed is, 1st, the term 
Son is applied to Christ as the second person of the Godhead. 
2d. This term, and the equivalent one, "only begotten," reveal 
some relation, within Godhead, of the person of the Son to the 
person of the Father. The designation Father being reciprocal 
to that of Son. 3d. That this relation is such that Father and 
Son are the same in substance, and are personally equal ; that the 
Father is first and the Son second in the order of revelation and 
operation, that the Son is the express image of the Father's per- 
son, not the Father of the Son's, and that the Son is not from 
the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son. 

54. How may it be shown that the common doctrine is not 
self -contradictory ? 

There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple scriptural 
statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox 
controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a manifest 
inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father communi- 
cates to the Son the whole divine essence without alienating it 
from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This subject 
does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human logic, yet it 
is evident that this theory involves no contradiction and no mys- 
tery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being 
at the same time present, without division or diffusion to every 
point of space. 



148 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

55. If God is " ens a se ipso" self -existent, how can the S071 
he really God, if he be " Oeog en deov," God from the Father ? 

The objection presented in this question does not pi ess against 
the scriptural statement of the eternal generation of the Son pre- 
sented above (question 53,) but solely against the theory of deri- 
vation as involved in the ordinary definition (see question 52.) 
Those who insist upon the validity of that view rebut the objec- 
tion by saying that self-existence is an attribute of essence, not 
of person. The Father, as a person, generates the person, not 
the essence of the Son, whose person is constituted of the very 
same self-existent essence with the Father's. Thus the Son is 
dvrodeog, i. e., Deus a se ipso as to his essence, but Oeog etc deov, 
God from God, as to his person. 

56. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may be 
derived from the designation of the persons of the Trinity as 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? 

In the apostolical benediction and the formula of baptism the 
one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The 
term Son cannot here be applied to Christ as an official title, or 
as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so called as 
one of the three divine persons constituting the Godhead. 2d. 
The term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and therefore 
designates the relation of the second person to the first. What- 
ever this relation may involve besides, it evidently must be eter- 
nal and necessary, and includes paternity on the part of the first 
person, and filiation on the part of the second. 

57. What argument in support of this doctrine may be de- 
rived from the use of the word son in Matt. xi. 27 and Luke 

x. 22 ? 

In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate 
the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his rela- 
tion to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the 
Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and therefore 
knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be 
known by none other than the Father. 



ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 149 

58. State the argument from John i., 1-14. 

Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as 
such to his disciples by the manifestation of his nativ^ divine 
glory, " the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." He 
was " only begotten Son," therefore as God, and not either as 
Mediator or as man. 

59. State the argument from the application in Scripture of 
the terms fiovoyevrjg, (only begotten) and Idiog, {own) to the Son- 
ship of Christ. 

Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the 
phrase, Son of God in the singular, and when limited by the 
terms " own" and " only begotten," is applied only to Christ. 

Christ is called "only begotten Son of God." — John i., 14, 18; 
iii., 16, 18 ; 1 John iv., 9. 

In John v., 18, Christ calls God his oivn Father, (see Greek.) 
He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii., 32. 

The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called 
Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is 
so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man, 
nor as the bearer of an office. 

60. What is the argument derived from John v., 22, and con- 
text, and from John x., 33-37. 

In the first passage the terms Father and son are used to 
designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does 
whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive equal honor. 

In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, " Son of God," 
as equivalent to assenting that he was God. The Jews charging 
it upon him as blasphemy. 

61. What is the evidence furnished by such passages as speak 
of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ? 

See 1 John iii., 8 ; Rom. viii., 3 ; John iii., 16, etc. 
To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he 
was Son before he was sent or manifested as such. 

62. State the argument from Rom. i., 3, 4. 

The argument from this passage is two-fold : 1st. The Son of 



150 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

God is declared to have been made flesh, and therefore must have 
preexisted as Son. 2d. By the resurrection he was powerfully 
manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. The 
phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of holi- 
ness, are evidently antithetical, designating severally the Lord's 
human and divine natures. 

63. State the argument from Kom. viii., 3. 

Here God's own Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, 
Obviously he must have preexisted as such before he assumed the 
likeness of sinful flesh, the assumption of which certainly could 
not have constituted him the own Son of God. 

64. State the argument from Col. i., 15-21. 

In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature and 
glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called God's 
dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the image of the 
invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc. 

65. State the argument from Heb. i., 5-8. 

Paul is here setting forth the superiority of Christ as a divine 
person. As divine he calls him " the Son," " the first begotten." 
This Son is brought into the world, and therefore must have pre- 
existed as such. As Son he is declared to be God, and to reign 
upon an everlasting throne. 

66. What passages are relied upon by the opponents of the 
orthodox doctrine for proof that the term Son, as applied to 
Christ, is an official title, and how can they be explained ? 

From such passages as Matt, xvi., 16, and John i., 49, it is 
argued that the epithets, Christ or Messiah, and King of Israel, 
are equivalent to Son of God, and that consequently he is called 
Son only because he occupies these offices. From John x., 35, 36, 
it is argued that Christ is called Son, because the Father hath 
sanctified him and sent him into the world. 

We answer that not one of these passages, nor any other, ex- 
pressly declares that Christ is called Son because he bears the 
office of mediator; they merely declare that he is Son of God, and 
holds that office. But even if it could be proved that he is called 



ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. , 151 

on occasion " Son of God/' on the ground of any subordinate 
relation, which, as man or as mediator, he sustains to God, that 
fact could not in the least invalidate the testimony of those pas- 
sages which we have above cited to prove that he is also called 
Son of God in a higher sense, as the Word who from the begin- 
ning was in the bosom of the Father. 

67. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Kom. i., 4, teach that 
Christ was made Son of God. 

Dr. Alexander says (see Com. on Psalms) with relation to 
Psalms ii., 7, that it means simply, " Thou art my Son, this day 
I am thy Father, now always eternally thy Father. Even if 
' this day' be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is 
thrown indefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra- 
tion in the first clause of the verse. l Jehovah said to me/ but 
when ? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of ex- 
pression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figurative 
forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in 
human language." With regard to Eom. i., 4, Dr. Hodge says 
(see Com. on Komans) that the Greek word dpcodevrog, translated 
in the authorized version declared, is always elsewhere in the 
New Testament used to signify constitute, appoint. But the 
great majority of commentators, including some of the most 
ancient Greek fathers, agree in interpreting it in this passage in 
the sense of declare, manifest. 

It is very evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and 
was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and, 
therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested to be the 
Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that 
event. 

68. Show that Acts xiii., 32, 33 does not prove that Jesus was 
m,ade Son of God. 

It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted Son 
of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official exal- 
tation. This can not be, 1st, because he was sent into the world 
as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dvaarrjaag, having raised 
up, refers to the raising up Christ at his birth, and not to his 
resurrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to the 



152 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

word again in the English.) When this word is used to desig- 
nate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase from 
the dead, as in verse 34th. Yerse 32 declares the fulfillment of 
the promise referred to in verse 23d. — See Alexander's Com. on 
Acts. 

69. How can those passages ivhich speak of the Son as in- 
ferior and subject to the Father he reconciled with this doctrine ? 

It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, is 
inferior and subject to the Father. 

We answer that in John iii., 13 the " Son of Man" is said to 
have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely 
Jesus, as Son of Man, was not omnipresent. In Acts xx., 28 
God is said to purchase his church with his own blood ; but 
surely Christ, as God, did not shed his blood. The explanation 
of this is that it is the common usage of Scripture to designate 
the single person of the God-man by a title belonging to him as 
the possessor of one nature, while the condition, attribute, rela- 
tion, or action predicated of him is true only of the other nature. 
Thus in the passages in question he is called " Son of God," be- 
cause he is the eternal Word, while at the same time he is said 
to be inferior to the Father, because he is also man and mediator. 

70: What is the true explanation of Luke i., 35 ? 

That Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, and proved to be 
such by his miraculous conception. It is not probable that it is 
meant he was called Son because of that event, since his human 
nature was begotten by the Holy Ghost, and yet he is never called 
the Son of the Holy Ghost. 

But even if it were affirmed that he was called Son of God 
for that reason, it would still remain true, as above shown, that 
he is revealed as from eternity the Son of God for an infinitely 
higher reason. 

(II.) The relation which the third person sustains to 
the first and second, or the eternal procession of the 
Holy Ghost. 

71. What is the etymology of the word Spirit, and the usage 
of its Hebrew and Greek equivalents ? 



ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 153 

The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, breath, 
wind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to 
breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word, fivi, has a perfectly anal- 
ogous usage. 1st. Its primary sense is wind, air in motion, Gen. 
viii., 1 ; then, 2d, breath, the breath of life, Gen. vi., 17 ; Job xvii., 
1 ; 3d, animal soul, vital principle in men and animals, 1 Sam. 
xxx., 12 ; 4th, rational soul of man, Gen. xli., 8, and hence, meta- 
phorically, disposition, temperament, Num. v., 14 ; 5th, Spirit of 
Jehovah, Gen. i., 2 ; Ps. li., 11. — Gesenius' Lex. 

The equivalent Greek word, nvevim, has also the same usage. 
It is derived from, nvecj, to breathe, to blow. It signifies, 1st, 
breath, Eev. xi., 11 ; 2d, air in motion, John iii., 8 ; 3d, the vital 
principle, Matt, xxvii., 50 ; 4th, the rational soul spoken (1.) of, 
the disembodied spirits of men, Heb. xii., 23 ; (2.) of devils, 
Matt., x., 1 ; (3.) of angels, Heb. i., 14 ; (4.) the Spirit of God, 
spoken of God, a, absolutely as an attribute of his essence, John 
iv., 24 ; and b as the personal designation of the third person of 
the trinity, who is called Spirit of God, or of the Lord, and the 
Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ, or of Jesus, or of the Son 
of God, Acts xvi., 6, 7 ; Kom. viii., 9 ; 2 Cor. iii., 17 ; Gal. iv., 
6 ; Phil, i., 19 ; 1 Pet. i., 11. 

72. Why is the third person of the Trinity called the Spirit ? 

As the one indivisible divine essence which is common to each 
of the divine persons alike is spiritual, this term, as the personal 
designation of the third person, can not be intended to signify the 
fact that he is a Spirit as to his essence, but rather to mark 
what is peculiar to his person, i. e., his personal relation to the 
Father and the Son, and the peculiar mode of his operation ad 
extra. As the reciprocal epithets Father and Son are used to in- 
dicate, so far forth, the mutual relations of the first and second 
persons, so the epithets, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Son, 
Spirit which proceedeth from the Father, are applied to the third 
person to indicate, so far forth, the relation of the third person 
to the first and second. 

73. Why is he called Holy Spirit ? 

As holiness is an attribute of the divine essence, and the glory 
equally of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it can not be applied in 



154 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

any preeminent sense as a personal characteristic to the third 
person. It indicates, therefore, the peculiar nature of his opera- 
tion. He is called the Holy Spirit because he is the author of 
holiness throughout the universe. As the Son is also styled 
Logos, or God, the Kevealer, so the Holy Spirit is God, the 
Operator, the end and glory of whose work in the moral world is 
holiness, as in the physical world beauty. 

74. Why is he called the Spirit of God ? 

This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the Godhead 
as himself God, 1 Cor. ii., 11 ; his intimate personal relation to 
the Father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, John 
xv., 26 ; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which pro- 
ceeding from God operates upon the creature, Ps. civ., 30 ; 1 Pet. 
iv., 14. 

75. Why is the third person called the Spirit of Christ ? 

See Gal. iv., 6 ; Kom. viii., 9 ; Phil, i., 19 ; 1 Peter i., 11. 
As the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit 
of God, and Spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, with one 
exception, John xv., 26, uniformly predicate every thing of the 
relation of the Spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the rela- 
tion of the Spirit to the Father, it appears evident that he is 
called Spirit of the Son for the same reason that he is called 
Spirit of God. 

This phrase also additionally sets forth the official relation 
which the Spirit in his agency in the work of redemption sustains 
to the Godman, in taking of his, and showing them to us, John 
xvi., 14. 

76. What is meant by the theological phrase, Procession of 
the Holy Ghost ? 

Theologians intend by this phrase to designate the relation 
which the third person sustains to the first and second, wherein 
by an eternal and necessary, i. e., not voluntary, act of the Father 
and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, without alien- 
ation, division, or change, is communicated to the Holy Ghost. 

77. What distinction do theologians make between "proces- 
sion" and "generation ?" 



ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 155 

As this entire subject infinitely transcends the measure of our 
faculties, we can do nothing further than classify and contrast 
those predicates which inspiration has applied to the relation of 
Father and Son with those which it has applied to the relation 
of the Spirit to the Father and Son. 

Thus Turrettin, Vol. L, L. 3., Q. 31. They differ, " 1st. As 
to source, the Son emanates from the Father only, but the Spirit 
from the Father and the Son at the same time. 2d. As to mode. 
The Son emanates in the way of generation, which affects not 
only personality, but similitude, on account of which the Son is 
called the image of the Father, and in consequence of which he 
receives the property of communicating the same essence to an- 
other person ; but the Spirit, by the way of spiration, which 
effects only personality, and in consequence of which the person 
who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating the 
same essence to another person. 3d. As to order. The Son is 
second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eternal, 
without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of conception, 
generation precedes procession." 

" The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction be- 
tween generation and spiration upon the different operations of 
the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son was 
generated per modum intellectus, whence he is called the Word 
of God. The Spirit proceeds per modum voluntatis, whence he 
is called Love." 

78. What is the Scripture ground for this doctrine ? 

What we remarked above (question 53,) concerning the com- 
mon theological definition of the eternal generation of the Son, 
holds true also with reference to the common definition of the eter- 
nal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order to make the 
method of the divine unity in trinity more apparent, theologians 
have pressed the idea of derivation and subordination in the order 
of personal subsistence too far. This ground is at once sacred 
and mysterious. The points given by Scripture are not to be 
pressed nor speculated upon, but received and confessed nakedly. 

The data of inspiration are simply as follows : 1st. Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eternity 
the one whole identical, indivisible, unchangeable essence. 2d. 



156 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the order 
in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and from the 
fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, and that the 
Spirit is called his, the one proceeding from him, and from the order 
of his manifestation and operation ad extra, is evidently in some 
way first in order of personal subsistence relatively to the Son and 
Spirit. 3d. For the same reason (see below, question 80) the Son, 
in the order of personal subsistence, is before the Spirit. 4th. 
"What the real nature of these distinctions in the order of per- 
sonal substance may be is made known to us only so far, (1.) that 
it involves no distinction as to time, since all are alike eternal. (2.) 
It does not depend upon any voluntary action, for that would 
make the second person dependent upon the first, and the third upon 
the first and second, while they are all "equal in }3ower and glory." 
(3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally only 
begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the Spirit of 
the first and second. 

79. What was the difference betiveen the Greek and Latin 
churches on this doctrine ? 

The famous Council of Nice, A. D. 325, while so accurately 
defining the doctrine of the Godhead of the Son, left the testi- 
mony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which it 
stood in the ancient creed, " in the Holy Ghost/' But the 
heresy of Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, 
having sprung up in the mean time, the Council of Constantinople, 
A. D. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene Creed thus, " I 
believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of Life, who 
proceedeth from the Father." 

There subsequently arose a controversy upon the question, 
whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit as 
sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he does to 
the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at the third 
ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, A. D. 589, they added the word 
filioque (and the Son) to the Latin version of the Constantinopol- 
itan Creed, making the clause read " Credimus in Spiritum Sanc- 
tum qui a Patre Filioque procedit." The Greek church violently 
opposed this, and to this day reject it. For a short time they 
were satisfied with the compromise, " The Spirit proceeding from 



ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 157 

the Father through the Son/' which was finally rejected by both 
parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, as amended at the Coun- 
cil of Toledo, is the one now adopted by the Catholic Church, and 
recognized by all Protestants, currently bearing the title of 
"Nicene Creed." 

80. Hoiv may it be proved that, as far as revealed, the Spirit 
sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which he does to 
the Father ? 

The epithet " Spirit" is the characteristic personal designation 
of the third person. "Whatever is revealed of his eternal and 
necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son is in- 
dicated by this word. Yet he is called the Spirit of the Son, as 
well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same identical 
essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends and operates 
through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever their Spirit is 
there both Father and Son are revealed, and there they exercise 
their power. — John xiv., 16, 26; xv., 26; xvi., 7. With the sin- 
gle exception of the phrase, " which proceecleth from the Father/' 
(John xv., 26,) the Scriptures apply precisely the same predicates 
to the relation of the Spirit to the Son that they do to his rela- 
tion to the Father. 

81. What office does the Spirit discharge in the economy of 
redemption ? 

In the economy of redemption, as universally in all the actings 
of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the revealed 
God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine person 
who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the creature. 
For a more detailed answer see Chapter XXI., on " The Media- 
torial Office of Christ," question 9. 

(III.) The personal properties peculiar to each of the 

THREE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD, AND THEIR ORDER OF OPER- 
ATION AD EXTRA. 

82. What is the theological meaning of the word property as 
applied to the doctrine of the Trinity ? 

The attributes of God are the perfections of the divine essence, 



158 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are " the 
same in substance," and therefore " equal in power and glory." 
These have been discussed under Chapter VII. The properties 
of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes 
of personal subsistence whereby each divine person is constituted 
as such, and that peculiar order of operation whereby each per- 
son is distinguished from the others. 

As far as these are revealed to us the personal properties of 
the Father are as follows : He is begotten by none, and proceeds 
from none ; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten him 
from eternity ; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his Spirit. 
Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending and operat- 
ing through the Son and Spirit. 

The personal properties of the Son are as follows : He is the 
Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit 
is the Spirit of the Son even as he is the Spirit of the Father ; 
he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals : he, even as the Fa- 
ther, sends and operates through the Spirit. 

The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows : He is the 
Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding from 
them ; he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operating 
through him ; he operates immediately upon the creature. 

83. What hind of subordination did the early writers at- 
tribute to the second and third person in relation to the first ? 

They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of the 
Son by the Father, and the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost 
from the Father and the Son involved in both instances the deri- 
vation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this eternal and 
necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous 
body, which necessarily radiates light the whole period of its ex- 
istence. Thus the Son is defined in the words of the Nicene 
Creed, " God of Grod, Light of Light." Thus as the radiance of 
the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its 
source, by this illustration they designed to signify their belief 
in the identity and consequent equality of the divine persons as to 
essence, and the relative subordination of the second to the first, 
and of the third to the first and second as to personal subsistence 
and consequent order of operation. 



ORDER OF PERSONS. 159 

84. What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second, 
and third in reference to the persons of the Trinity. 

These terms are severally applied to the persons of the Trinity 
because, 1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names in this 
order. 2d. The personal designations, Father and Son, and 
Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of per- 
sonal subsistence. 3d. Their respective modes of operation ad 
extra is always in this order. The Father sends and operates 
through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate 
through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or indi- 
rectly indicate the reverse order. 

As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the creature 
it would appear, that the Father is revealed only as he is seen 
in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the ex- 
press image of the Father's person. " No man hath seen God 
at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the 
Father, he hath declared him." — John i., 18. And the Father 
and Son act immediately vl^oti the creature only through the Spirit. 

" The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead invisible, with- 
out form, whom no man hath seen or can see." 

" The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested." 

" The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting imme- 
diately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the Father 
in the image of the Son, and through the power of the Spirit." — ■ 
" Higher Christian Life," by Kev. W. E. Boardman, p. 105. 

85. Hoiv can the assumption of personal distinctions in the 
Godhead be reconciled ivith the divine unity ? 

Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is alto- 
gether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to us 
only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently no con- 
tradiction in the two-fold proposition, that God is one, and yet 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They are one 
in one sense, and three-fold in an entirely different sense. The 
eternal, self-existent, divine essence, constituting all those divine 
perfections called attributes of God is, in the same sense and de- 
gree, common to all the persons. In this sense they are one. 
But this divine essence exists eternally as Father, and as Son, 



160 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by personal properties. In this 
sense they are three. We believe this, not because we under- 
stand it, but because thus God has revealed himself. 

86. How can the separate incarnation of the Son be reconciled 
with the divine unity ? 

The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence, 
but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incar- 
nation, the divine essence of the Son was not made man, but as a 
divine person he entered into a personal relation with the 
human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not constitute 
a new person, but merely introduced a new element into his eter- 
nal person. It was the personal union of the Son with a human 
soul and body, and not any change either in the divine essence, 
or in the personal relation of the Son to the Father or the Spirit. 

87. What is Arianism ? 

This system was first advocated by Arius, who lived during 
the first half of the fourth century. He maintained that the God- 
head consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before 
all worlds, created in his own image a super-angelic being, his 
only begotten Son, the beginning of the creation of God, by 
whom also he made the worlds. The first and greatest creature 
thus created, through the Son of God, was the Holy Ghost. In 
the fullness of time this Son became incarnate in the person of 
Jesus of Nazareth. 

88. What ivas the doctrine of the Semi-Arians ? 

This party was so called as occupying middle ground between 
the Arians and the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self- 
existent God was one. person, but that the Son was a divine per- 
son of a glorious essence, like to (oilolovolov') but not identical 
with (dfioovacov) that of the Father, and from eternity begot- 
ten by the Father by a free exercise of will and power, and 
therefore subordinate to and dependant upon him. This party 
was largely represented at the Council of Nice. 

It appears that some of the Semi-Arians agreed with the 
Arians in regarding the Holy Spirit as the first and most glorious 
creature of the Son, but that the majority regarded the words 



HERETICAL OPINIONS. 161 

" Holy Spirit," as significant of a divine energy, or as a synonyme 
of the word God. — See Neander's Ch. Hist., Torrey's translation, 
Vol. II., pp. 419, 420. 

89. WJiat is Sabellianism ? 

This term represents the opinion that God is one single per- 
son as well as one single essence. The term Father is the name 
appropriated to this one person, when considered in his incom- 
prehensible greatness, and in his absolute sovereignty. The term 
Son is the name appropriated to the same person when conceived 
of as revealing himself, and as becoming incarnate and dwelling 
among men. The term Holy Ghost is the name applied to him 
when conceived of as operating immediately upon the creature in 
his works of creation, providence or grace. The more significant 
and generic title of the sects holding this opinion is Monarchians, 
or those maintaining the absolute unity of the Godhead, personal 
as well as essential. They were also called Patripassians, because 
they believed that the one divine person, called Father, as well 
as Son or Holy Ghost was united to the man Christ Jesus, who 
suffered on the cross. This system was taught, with special modi- 
fications, by several heretical leaders of the early church, first by 
Praxeas, a confessor at Rome, at the end of the second century. 
It has, however, currently born the name of Sabellius, an African 
bishop who lived during the middle of the third century. The 
Swedenborgians of the present day are Sabellians. 

90. What is Tritheism ? 

This opinion, the extreme opposite of Sabellianism, is said to 
have been first advocated by John Ascusnage, a Syrian philoso- 
pher, who flourished during the sixth century. He taught that 
the Godhead is constituted of three beings, distinct in essence as 
well as in person. Hence there are three Gods, united not in 
being, but only in the most intimate fellowship of counsel and 
will. 

91. What is Socinianism ? 

This system regards God the Father as the only God, one in 
person as well as essence, and Jesus Christ as a mere man, though 
an inspired prophet, and called Son of God only on account of 
bis miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin ; and the 



162 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

term Holy Spirit only as another name for the one God, the Fa- 
ther. The more common and significant title of this system is 
Unitarianism. It takes its designation of Socinianism from its 
most successful promulgators Loelius and Faustus Socinus, uncle 
and nephew, who flourished during the latter half of the sixteenth 
century. Italians by b)irth, the uncle died in the bosom of the 
Reformed Church of Zurich, a. d., 1562, but the nephew, ulti- 
mately joining the Unitarians of Poland, gave the final form to 
their religious system, and from his writings the Racovian Cate- 
chism was principally compiled, which remains to this day the 
most authoritative exposition of the Unitarian faith. — See Mos- 
lem's Ch. Hist., Vol. III., p. 235. 

92. By what considerations may it be shown that the doctrine 
of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel ? 

It is not claimed that the refinements of theological specula- 
tions upon this subject are essential points of faith, but simply 
that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three persons in 
one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures. 1st. 
The only true God is that God who has revealed himself to us in 
the Scriptures, and the very end of the gospel is to bring us to 
the knowledge of that God precisely in the aspect in which he has 
revealed himself. Every other conception of God presents a false 
god to the mind and conscience. There can be no mutual toler- 
ation without treason. Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians wor- 
ship different Gods. 

2d. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of 
this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal 
life, and that it is necessary to honor the Son even as we honor 
the Father.— John v., 23 ; xiv., 1 ; xvii., 3 ; 1 John ii., 23 ; v., 20. 
3d. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are baptized 
into the name of every several person of the trinity, Matt, xxviii., 19. 

4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded 
upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that 
makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, 
can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth. 

5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in whatever 
church the doctrine of the trinity has been abandoned or obscured, 
every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone with it 



C HAP TER IX. 

THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

1. What are the decrees of God ? 

See Con. of Faith, chap, in., Larger Cat., Q. 12, and Shorter 
Cat., Q. 7. 

The decree of God is his eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and 
sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever 
were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions and rela- 
tions, and determining their certain futurition. The several con- 
tents of this one eternal purpose are, because of the limitation of 
our faculties, necessarily conceived of by us in partial aspects, and 
in logical relations, and are therefore styled Decrees. 

2. How are the acts of God classified, and to which class do 
theologians refer the decrees ? 

All conceivable divine actions may be classified as follows : 

1st. Those actions which are immanent and intrinsic, belong- 
ing essentially to the perfection of the divine nature, and which 
bear no reference whatever to any existence without the Godhead. 
These are the acts of eternal and necessary generation, whereby 
the Son springs from the Father, and of eternal and necessary 
procession whereby the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the 
Son, and all those actions whatsoever involved in the mutual 
society of the divine persons. 

2d. Those actions which are extrinsic and transient, i. e., 
those free actions proceeding from God and terminating upon the 
creature, occurring successively in time, as God's acts in creation, 
providence and grace. 

3d. The third class are like the first inasmuch as they are in- 
trinsic and immanent, essential to the perfection of the divine 



164 



THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 



nature and permanent states of the divine mind, but they differ, 
on the other hand, from the first class, inasmuch as they have re- 
spect to the whole dependent creation exterior to the Godhead. 
These are the eternal and immutable decrees of God respecting 
all beings and events whatsoever exterior to himself. 

3. How may it be proved that the decrees of God are 
eternal ? 

1st. As God is infinite, he is necessarily eternal and unchange- 
able, from eternity infinite in wisdom and knowledge, and abso- 
lutely independent in thought and purpose of every creature. 
There can never be any addition to his wisdom, nor surprise to 
his foreknowledge, nor resistance to his power, and therefore there 
never can be any occasion to reverse or modify that infinitely wise 
and righteous purpose which, from the perfection of his nature, 
he formed from eternity. 

2d. Scripture directly affirms it. — Acts xv., 18, (dn'' dt&vog, 
from eternity,) Matt, xxv., 34 ; Eph. i., 4 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13 ; 2 
Tim. i., 9 ; 1 Cor. ii., 7. Time is limited duration measured by 
succession, and therefore commenced at the creation; "before the 
world" therefore, means " before time" or from eternity ; 
" iEternitas est una, individua, et tota simul." 

4. How may it be proved from Scripture that the decrees of 
God relate to all events ? 

Eph. i., 10, 11 ; Acts xv., 18 ; xvii., 26 ; Job xiv., 5 ; Isa. 
xlvi., 10. Even the free acts of men, (Eph. ii., 10,) even their 
wicked actions. — Acts ii., 23 ; iv., 27, 28 ; Ps. lxxvi., 10 ; Prov. 
xvl, 4. Also what men call accidental events. — Prov. xvi., 33, 
compare with Acts xv., 18. All things in heaven and on earth. — 
Dan. iv., 34, 35. 

5. Prove the universality of God's decrees from providence. 

It follows from the eternity, immutability, and infinite wis- 
dom, foreknowledge, and power of God, that his temporal work- 
ing in providence must in all things proceed according to his 
eternal purpose. — Eph. i., 11, and Acts xv., 18. But both Scrip- 
ture and reason alike teach us that the providential government 
of God comprehends all things in heaven and on earth as a whole } 



ETERNAL AND UNIVERSAL. 165 

and every event in detail. — Prov. xvi., 33 ; Dan. iv., 34, 35 ; 
Matt. x., 29, 30. 

6. Prove this doctrine from prophecy. 

God has in the Scriptures foretold the certain occurrence of 
many events, including the free actions of men, which have after- 
wards surely come to pass. Now the ground of prophecy is fore- 
knowledge, and the foundation of the foreknowledge of an event 
as certainly future, is God's decree that made it future. The 
eternal immutability of the decree is the only foundation of the 
infallibility either of the foreknowledge or of the prophecy. But 
if God has decreed certain future events, he must also have in- 
cluded in that decree all of their causes, conditions, coordinates, 
and consequences. No event is isolated ; to make one certainly 
future implies the determination of the whole concatenation of 
causes and effects which constitute the universe. 

7. What reasons may be assigned for contemplating the de- 
crees of God as one, all-comprehensive purpose ? 

1st. As above shown, the decrees of God are eternal and im- 
mutable. 2d. No event is isolated. To decree one implies the 
foreordination of the whole concatenation of events which consti- 
tute the universe. As all events constitute one system, they must 
have been determined in one purpose. 3d. God decrees all things 
as they actually occur, i. e., as produced by causes, and as de- 
pending upon conditions, etc. The same decree, therefore, which 
determines the event, determines it as produced by its cause, and 
as depending upon its conditions. 

Most of the mistakes which heterodox speculators have made, 
with reference to the nature of God's decrees, arise from the ten- 
dency of the human mind to confine attention to one fragment of 
God's eternal purpose, and to regard it as isolated from the rest. 
This decree never determined the certain occurrence of any single 
event as separated from the second causes which produce it, but 
it at once, and as a whole, determines the certain occurrence of all 
things that ever come to pass, the causes as well as their effects, 
the condition as well as that which is suspended upon it, and all 
in the very relations in which they actually occur. 



166 



THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 



8. In what sense are the decrees of God free ? 

The decrees of God are free in the sense that in decreeing he 
was solely actuated by his own infinitely wise, righteous, and 
benevolent good pleasure. He has always chosen as he pleased, 
and he has always pleased consistently with the perfection of his 
nature. 

9. In ivhat sense are the decrees of God sovereign ? 

They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine 
absolutely whatever occurs without God, their whole reason and 
motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither sug- 
gested nor occasioned by, nor conditioned upon anything whatso- 
ever without him. 



10. What is the distinction between absolute and, conditional 
decrees ? 

An absolute decree is one which, while it may include con- 
ditions, is suspended upon no condition, i. e., it makes the event 
decreed, of whatever kind, whether of mechanical necessity or of 
voluntary agency, certainly future, together with all the causes 
and conditions, of whatever nature, upon which the event depends. 

A conditional decree is one which decrees that an event shall 
happen upon the condition that some other event, possible but 
uncertain (not decreed), shall actually occur. 

The Socinians denied that the free actions of men, being in- 
trinsically uncertain, are the objects of knowledge, and therefore 
affirmed that they are not foreknown by God. They held that 
God decreed absolutely to create the human race, and after Adam 
sinned he decreed absolutely to save all repenting and believing 
sinners, yet that he decreed nothing concerning the sinning nor the 
salvation of individual men. 

The Arminians, admitting that God certainly foreknows the 
acts of free agents as well as all other events, maintain that he 
absolutely decreed to create man, and foreseeing that man would 
sin he absolutely decreed to provide a salvation for all, and actu- 
ally to save all that repent and believe, but that he conditionally 
decreed to save individual men on the condition, foreseen but not 
foreordained, of their faith and obedience. 



NOT CONDITIONAL. 167 

11. What are the objections to attributing conditional decrees 
to God ? 

Calvinists admit that the all comprehensive decree of God de- 
termines all events according to their inherent nature, the actions 
of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, neces- 
sarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects 
of every kind ; of the motives and conditions of free actions, as 
well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed sal- 
vation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act he de- 
creed the faith of those persons whose salvation he has determined. 
" Whom he did predestinate, them he also called." Thus his 
decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free 
agency of man, as well as the regular procedures of nature, ac- 
cording to established laws. Thus also his covenants, or con- 
ditional promises, which he makes in time, are in all their parts 
the execution of his eternal purpose, which comprehended the 
promise, and the condition in their several places as means to the 
end. But that the decree of God can be regarded as suspended 
upon conditions which are not themselves determined by the decree 
is evidently impossible. 

1st. This decree has been shown above (questions 3-7) to be 
eternal and all comprehensive. A condition implies liability to 
change. The whole universe forming one system, if one part is 
contingent the whole must be contingent, for if one condition 
failed the whole concatenation of causes and effects would be de- 
ranged. If the Arrninian should rejoin that although God did 
not foreordain the free acts of men, yet he infallibly foreknew 
and provided for them, and therefore his plans can not fail ; then 
the Calvinist replies that if God foresaw that a given man, in 
given circumstances, would act at a given juncture in a certain way, 
then God in decreeing to create that very man and place him in 
those very circumstances, at that very juncture, did foreordain the 
certain futurition of that very event, and of all its consequences. 
That God's decree is immutable and does not depend upon uncer- 
tain conditions, is proved (1.) from its eternity, (2.) from the 
direct assertions of Scripture. — Is. xiv., 24, 27 ; xlvi., 10 ; Ps. 
xxxiii., 11 ; Prov. xix., 21 ; Eom. ix., 11 ; Eph. iii., 11. 

2d. The foreknowledge of God, as Arminians admit, is eternal; 
and certain, and embraces all events, free as well as necessary;. 



168 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

But, (1.) as shown in the preceding paragraph, this foreknowl- 
edge involves foreordination, and (2.) certainty in the foreknowl- 
edge implies certainty in the event ; certainty implies determina- 
tion ; determination leaves us to choose between the decree of 
an infinitely wise, righteous, and benevolent God, and a blind 
fate. 

3d. A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of 
God and make him, as to the administration of his whole govern- 
ment and the execution of all his plans, dependent upon the un- 
controlable actions of his own creatures. But the decrees of God 
are sovereign.- — Isa. xl., 13, 14 ; Dan. iv., 35 ; Kom. ix., 15-18. 

4th. His decree is declared to depend upon his own " good 
pleasure/' and the " counsel of his own will." — Eph. i., 5, 11 ; 
Rom. ix., 11 ; Matt, xi., 25, 26. 

5th. The decree of God includes the means and conditions. — 
2 Thes. ii., 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i., 4 

6th. His decree absolutely determines the free actions of 
men.— Acts iv., 27, 28 ; Eph. ii., 10. 

7th. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience 
which are called the conditions of their salvation. — Phil, ii., 13 ; 
Eph. ii., 8 ; 2 Tim. ii., 25. 

12. How far are the decrees of God efficacious and how far 
permissive ? 

All the decrees of God are equally efficacious in the sense that 
they all infallibly determine the certain futurition of the event 
decreed. Theologians, however, classify the decrees of God thus : 
1st. As efficacious in as far as they respect those events which he 
has determined to effect through necessary causes, or in his own 
immediate agency. 2d. As permissive, as far as they respect 
those events which he has determined to allow dependent free 
agents to effect. 

13. How may it be proved that the decree of God renders the 
event certain ? 

1st. From the nature of the decree itself as sovereign and un- 
changeable, (see above.) 

2d. From the essential nature of God in his relation to his 
.creation, as an infinitely wise and powerful sovereign. 



NOT INCONSISTENT WITH MAN'S FREE AGENCY. 169 

3d. The foreknowledge of God regards future events as cer- 
tain. The ground of this certainty must be either in God, or in 
the events themselves, which last is fatalism. 

4th. The Scriptures ascribe a certainty of futurition to the 
events decreed. There is a needs be that the event should hap- 
pen " as it was determined." — Luke xviii., 31-33 ; xxiv., 46 ; 
Acts ii., 23 ; xiii., 29 ; 1 Cor. xi., 19 ; Matt, xvi., 21. 

14. Hoio does this doctrine, that God's universal decree ren- 
ders the occurrence of all future events certain, differ from the 
ancient doctrine of fate ? 

1st. The doctrine of fate supposed the certainty of events to 
be determined by a law of necessary causation, effecting its end 
irresistibly and irrespectively of the free choice of the human 
agents concerned. The Christian doctrine of God's decrees, on 
the other hand, regards that decree as determining the certainty 
of the event only in dependence upon, and in relation to all the 
causes and conditions which precede and attend it. It determines 
the lree act through the free will of the free agent. 

2d. Fate was regarded as the concurrent action of all material 
causes operating blindly and necessarily. 

The decrees of Jehovah, on the other hand, are the infinitely 
wise and immutable purposes of a righteous and merciful Father. 

15. What objection to this doctrine of unconditional decrees 
is derived from the admitted fact of man's free agency ? 

Objection. — Foreknowledge implies the certainty of the event. 
The decree of God implies that he has determined it to be cer- 
tain. But that he has determined it to be certain implies, upon 
the part of God, an efficient agency in bringing about that event 
which is inconsistent with the free agency of man. 

We answer : It is evidently only the execution of the decree, 
and not the decree itself, which can interfere with the free agency 
of man. On the general subject of the method in which God 
executes his decrees, see below, the chapters on Providence, 
Effectual Calling, and Kegeneration. 

We have here room only for the following general statement : 

1st. The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to God ; 



170 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

these " he works in us both to will and to do of his good pleas- 
ure." All the sins which men commit the Scriptures attribute 
wholly to the man himself. Yet God's permissive decree does 
truly determine the certain futurition of the act ; because God 
knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given 
circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those 
circumstances that he should so act. But in neither case, 
whether in working the good in us, or in placing us where we will 
certainly do the wrong, does God in executing his purpose ever 
violate or restrict the perfect freedom of the agent. 

2d. We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has decreed 
the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less 
responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts, Acts 
ii., 23 ; iii„ 18 ; iv., 27, 28 ; Gen. 1., 20, etc. We never can un- 
derstand how the infinite God acts upon the finite spirit of man, 
but it is none the less our duty to believe. 

3d. According to that theory of the will which makes the free- 
dom of man to consist in the liberty of indifference, i. e., that the 
will acts in every case of choice in a state of perfect equilibrium, 
equally independent of all motives for or against, and just as free 
to choose in opposition to all desires as in harmony with them, 
it is evident that the very essence of liberty consists in uncertainty. 
If this be the true theory of the will, God could not execute his 
decrees without violating the liberty of the agent, and certain 
foreknowledge would be impossible. 

But as shown below, in chapter 18, the true theory of the will 
is that the liberty of the agent consists in his acting in each case 
as, upon the whole, he pleases, i. e., according to the dispositions 
and desires of his heart, under the immediate view which his rea- 
son takes of the case. These dispositions and desires are deter- 
mined in their turn by the character of the agent in relation to 
his circumstances, which character and circumstances are surely 
not beyond the control of the infinite God. 

16. What is meant by those ivho teach that God is the author 
of sin ? 

Many reasoners of a Pantheistic tendency, e. g., Dr. Emmons, 
maintain that as God is infinite in sovereignty, and by his decree 
determines so by his providence, he effects every thing which 



GOD NOT THE AUTHOR OF SIN. 171 

comes to pass, so that he is actually the only real agent in the 
universe. Still they religiously hold that God is an infinitely 
holy agent in effecting that which, produced/rom God, is righte- 
ous, but, produced in us, is sin. 

17. How may it be shown that God is not the author of sin ? 

The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise, 
powerful and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explana- 
tion can he given. But that God can not he the author of sin is 
proved, 1st, from the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, 
dvofxia, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Law- 
giver. 

2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, 
and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and 
punishes sin. 

3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent 
who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to 
divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful ac- 
tions of men. 

18. How may it be shown that the doctrine of unconditional 
decrees does not represent God as the author of sin ? 

The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. If 
God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in the 
very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin would be 
committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not foresee 
it, or, foreseeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite in 
knowledge and in power, but is surprised and prevented by his 
creatures. The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no 
special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin 
shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any 
form of coaction causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing 
him to sin. 

19. What is the objection to this doctrine derived from the use 
of means ? 

This is the most common form of objection in the mouths of 
ignorant and irreligious people. If an immutable decree makes 
all future events certain, "if ivhat is to be, ivill be" then it fol- 



172 



THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 



lows that no means upon our part can avoid the result, nor can 
any means be necessary to secure it. 

Hence as the use of means is commanded by God, and instinc- 
tively natural to man, since many events have been effected by 
their use, and many more in the future evidently depend upon 
them, it follows that God has not rendered certain any of those 
events which depend upon the use of means on the part of 
men. 

20. What is the ground upon which the use of means is 
founded ? 

This use is founded upon the command of God, and upon that 
fitness in the means to secure the end desired, which our instincts, 
our intelligence, and our experience disclose to us. But neither 
the fitness nor the efficiency of the means to secure the end, reside 
inherently and independently in the means themselves, but were 
originally established and are now sustained by God himself ; and 
in the working of all means God always presides and directs pro- 
videntially. This is necessarily involved in any Christian theory 
of Providence, although we can never explicate the relative action 
(concursus) of God on man, the infinite upon the finite. 

21. How may it be shown that the doctrine of decrees does 
not afford a rational ground of discouragement in the use of 
means ? 

This difficulty (stated above, question 19) rests entirely in a 
habit of isolating one part of God's eternal decree from the whole, 
(see question 7), and in confounding the Christian doctrine of 
decrees with the heathen doctrine of fate, (see question 14.) But 
when God decreed an event he made it certainly future, not as 
insolated from other events, or as independent of all means and 
agents, but as dependent upon means and upon agents freely 
using those means. The same decree which makes the event cer- 
tain, also determines the mode by which it shall be effected, and 
comprehends the means with the ends. This eternal, all com- 
prehensive act embraces all existence through all duration, and 
all space as one system, and at once provides for the whole 
in all its parts, and for all the parts in all their relations 
to one another and to the whole. An event, therefore, may 



PRACTICAL EFFECTS. 173 

be certain in respect to God's decree and foreknowledge, and at 
the same time truly contingent in the apprehension of man, and 
in its relation to the means upon which it depends. 

22. What are the proper practical effects of this doctrine ? 

Humility in view of the infinite greatness and sovereignty of 
God, and of the dependence of man. Confidence and implicit 
reliance upon the wisdom, righteousness, goodness and immuta- 
bility of God's purposes, and cheerful obedience to his com- 
mandments ; always remembering that God's precepts, as dis- 
tinctly revealed, and not his decrees, are the rule of our duty. 



CHAPTER X. 



PREDESTINATION. 



1. What are the different senses in which the word predesti- 
nation is used by theologians ? 

1st. As equivalent to the generic word decreee, as including 
all God's eternal purposes. 

2d. As embracing only those purposes of God which specially 
respect his moral creatures. 

3d. As designating only the counsel of God concerning fallen 
men, including the sovereign election of some and the most righte- 
ous reprobation of the rest. 

4th. It is sometimes restricted in the range of its usage so far 
as to be applied only to the eternal election of God's people to 
everlasting life. 

The sense marked as 3d, above, is the most proper usage. — 
See Acts iv. 3 27, 28. 

2. In what senses are the words TrpoytvcjaKo (to knoiv before- 
hand), and rrgoyvcjacg (foreknowledge), used in the New Testa- 
ment? 

UpoytvcjoftG) is compounded of ttqo, before, and yiv6aKw, of 
which the primary sense is to know, and the secondary sense to 
approve, e. g., 2 Tim. ii., 19 ; John x., 14, 15 ; Rom. vii., 15. 
This word occurs five times in the New Testament. Twice, e. g., 
Acts xxvi., 5, and 2 Pet. ih\ 17, it signifies previous knowledge, 
apprehension, simply. In the remaining three instances, Eom. 
viii., 29 ; xi., 2 ; 1 Pet. i., 20, it is used in the secondary sense 
of approve beforehand. This is made evident from the context, 
for it is used to designate the ground of God's predestination of 
individuals to salvation, which elsewhere is expressly said to be 
" not according to our works, but according to his own purpose 



DEFINITIONS. 175 

and grace/' and "to the good pleasure of his will," 2 Tim. i., 9 ; 
Rom. ix., 11 ; Eph. i., 5. 

ILgnyvwotg occurs but twice in the New Testament, e. g., Acts 
ii., 23, and 1 Pet. i. 2, in both of which instances it evidently sig- 
nifies approbation, or choice from beforehand. It is explained by 
the equivalent phrase " determinate counsel." 

3. What is the New Testament usage of the words e/cAeyw (to 
elect) and hXoyrj (election) ? 

'EftAeyw occurs twenty-one times in the New Testament. It is 
used to signify, 1st, Christ's choice of men to be apostles, Luke 
vi., 13 ; John vi., 70. 2d. God's choice of the Jewish nation as 
a peculiar people, Acts xiii., 17. 3d. the choice of men by God, 
or by the church for some special service, Acts xv., 7, 22. 4th. 
The choice made by Mary of the better part, Luke x., 42. 5th. 
In the great majority of instances God's eternal election of indi- 
vidual men to everlasting life, John xv., 16 ; 1 Cor. i., 27, 28 ; 
Eph. i., 4 ; James ii., 5. 

'Eh-Xoyrj occurs seven times in the New Testament. Once it 
signifies an election to the apostolic office. — Acts ix., 15. Once 
it signifies those chosen to eternal life. — Rom. xi., 7. In every 
other case it signifies the purpose or the act of God in choosing 
his own people to salvation. — Rom. ix., 11; xi., 5, 28 ; 1 Thes. 
i., 4 ; 2 Pet. i., 10. 

4. To whom is election referred in the Scriptures ? 

The eternal decree, as a whole, and in all its parts, is doubt- 
less the concurrent act of all the three persons of the Trinity, in 
their perfect oneness of counsel and will. 

But in the economy of salvation, as revealed to us, the act of 
sovereign election is specially attributed to the Father, as his 
personal part, even as redemption is attributed to the Son, and 
sanctification to the Spirit. — John xvii., 6, 9 ; vi., 64, 65 ; 1 
Thes. v. 9. 

5. Are individuals, classes, or communities, the object of 
election ? 

The word " election" (as shown above, question 3) is applied to 
the designation by God of certain nations and classes of men to 
privileges and offices in the visible church. But that it is also 



176 PREDESTINATION. 

applied to the eternal election of individuals to salvation is 
evident. 

1st. The subjects of this election are everywhere spoken of 
as individuals. — Acts xiii., 48 ; Eph. i., 4 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13. 

2d. The elect are distinguished from the general community 
of the visible church. All Israel, as a body, did not obtain that 
which they sought for, the election obtained it, and the rest were 
blinded. — Eom. xi., 7. 

3d. The names of these are said " to be written in heaven/' 
and to be " in the book of life."— Heb. xii., 23 ; Phil, iv., 3. 

4th. The blessings which this election secures are such as per- 
tains to individuals alone, and not to classes or communities as 
such, e.g., "salvation," "adoption of sons," "to be conformed 
to the image of God's Son." — 2 Thes. ii., 13 ; Eph. i., 5 ; Kom. 
viii., 29. 

6. What is the Supra-lajosarian theory of 'predestination ? 

The term supra-lapsarian (supra lapsum) designates that view 
of the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical rela- 
tions which supposes that the ultimate end which G-od proposed 
to himself, was his own glory in the salvation of some men and in 
the damnation of others, and that, as a means to that end, he de- 
creed to create man, and to permit him to fall. According to 
this view, man simply as creatible, and fallible, and not as actu- 
ally created or fallen, is the object of election and reprobation. 
The order of the decrees would then be, 1st. Of all possible men, 
Grod first decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of 
others, for the end of his own glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means 
to that end, to create those already elected or reprobated. 3d. 
He decreed to permit them to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a 
salvation for the elect. 

7. What are the objections to this theory ? 

1st. It involves logical confusion. Man creatible is a nonen- 
tity. He could not have been loved or chosen unless considered 
as created. 

2d. The whole language of Scripture upon this subject im- 
plies that the " elect" are chosen as the objects of eternal love, not 



SUPRA-LAPSARIAN THEORY. 177 

from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sin- 
ful men. — John xv., 19; Rom. xi., 5, 7. 

3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sancti- 
fication, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must 
therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled 
by sin.— 1 Pet. i., 2 ; Eph, i., 4-6. 

4th. Predestination includes reprobation. This view repre- 
sents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, without 
any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This appears 
to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well as with 
the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are " ordained to dis- 
honor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious jus- 
tice. — Conf. Faith, ch. 3, Sec. 3-7, L. Cat., question 13 ; S. Cat., 
question 20. 

8. What is the trice interpretation of Eph. iii., 9, 10. 

This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- 
lapsarian theory. If the lva } introducing the tenth verse, refers to 
the immediately preceding clause, which closes the ninth verse, 
then the passage teaches that God created all things, in order that 
his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the 
angels. It is evident, however, that Iva refers to the preceding- 
phrase, in which Paul declares he was ordained to preach the 
gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mys- 
tery of redemption. All this he was commissioned to do, in 
order that God's glory might be displayed, etc. — See Hodge 
on Ephesians. 

9. What is the sub-lapsarian view of predestination ? 

The sub-lapsarian (sub lapsum) theory of predestination^ or 
the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in purpose to 
the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as created and 
fallen as the object of election. The order of the decrees then 
stand thus : 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. To permit man 
to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, out of the mass of 
the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, and to pass 
others by, leaving them to the just consequences of their sins*. 
4th.. The decree to provide salvation for the elect. 

12 



I; 



178 PKEDESTINATION. 

10. What is the Arminian theory as to the order of the de- 
crees relating to the human race ? 

1st. The decree to create man. 2d. Man, as a moral agent, 
being fallible, and bis will being essentially contingent, and bis 
sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man would 
certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, decreed 
to provide a free salvation through Christ for all men, and to 
provide sufficient means for the effectual application of that salva- 
tion to the case of all. 3d. - He decreed absolutely that all be- 
lievers in Christ should be saved, and all unbelievers reprobated 
for their sins. 4th. Forseeing that certain individuals would re- 
pent and believe, and that certain other individuals would con- 
tinue impenitent to the last, God from eternity elected to eternal 
life those whose faith he foresaw, on the condition of their faith, 
and reprobated those whom he foresaw would continue impeni- 
tent on the condition of that impenitence. 

With the Arminian the decree of redemption precedes the 
decree of election, which is conditioned upon the foreseen faith 
of the individual. 

With the Calvinist, on the other hand, the decree of election 
precedes the decree of redemption, and the decree of election is 
conditioned upon the simple good pleasure of God alone. — See 
Appendix B. 

11. What is the view of this subject entertained by the French 
Protestant theologians, Camero, Amyraut, and others ? 

These theological professors at Saumur, during the second 
quarter of the seventeenth century, taught that God, 1st. Decreed 
to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To provide, in 
the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, fore- 
seeing that if men were left to themselves none would repent and 
believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he de- 
creed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith. 

The new school theology of America, as far as it relates to the 
decrees of God, is only a revival of this system. 

It differs from the Calvinistic view in making the decree of 
redemption precede the decree of election. 

It differs from the Arminian view in regarding the sov- 



LUTHEREAN VIEW. 179 

ereign good pleasure of God, and not foreseen faith, the ground of 
election. The objection to this view is, that it is an essential ele- 
ment in that radically false view of the atonement called the 
governmental theory. — See Chapter XXII., questions 6, 7. 

12. In what sense do the Lutherans teach that Christ is the 
ground of election ? 

They held that God elected his own people to eternal life for 
Christ's sake. They appeal to Eph. i., 4, "According as he hath 
chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world." 
This view may evidently be construed either with the Arminian 
or the French theory of the decrees above stated, *. e., we were 
chosen in Christ for his sake, either as we were foreseen to be in 
him through faith, or because God, having provided through 
Christ salvation for all men, would, by the election of certain 
individuals, secure at least in their case the successful effect of 
Christ's death. 

This view, of course, is rebutted by the same arguments which 
we urge against the theories above mentioned. We are said to 
be chosen "in him/' not for Christ's sake, but because the eter- 
nal covenant of grace includes all the elect under the headship of 
Christ. The love of God is everywhere represented as the ground 
of the gift of Christ, not the work of Christ the ground of the 
love of God. — John iii., 16 ; 1 John iv., 10. 

13. What is the Arminian doctrine as to the ground of elec- 
tion ? 

The faith and repentance of the elect themselves, as foreseen 
by God. 

14. What, according to the Calvinistic view, is the ground 
of predestination ? 

The eternal, sovereign, and infinitely wise, righteous, and lov- 
ing will of God. 

15. , What arguments overthrow the Arminian and establish 
the Calvinistic view ? 

1st. It is derogatory to the sovereignty and infinite perfections 
of God to regard any decree of his as conditional upon any thing 
without himself. — See above, Chap. IX., question 11. 



180 PKEDESTINATION. 

2d. On the contrary, the Scriptures always assign the good 
pleasure of God as the ground of election. — Eph. i., 5, 11 ; 2 
Tim. i., 9 ; Eom. viii., 28. Its ground is declared to be in God 
and not in us, John xv., 16-19 ; Matt, xi., 26 ; James ii., 5 ; and 
to be of grace and not of works, Kom. xi., 4-7. This is affirmed, 
argued and illustrated, Kom. ix., 10-13. 

3d. Faith and repentence are themselves declared to be " the 
gift of God/' Eph. ii, 8 ; Acts v., 31, and therefore were included 
in the decree, and could not have been the indeterminate condition 
of it. — See Chapter IX., question 7. 

4th. It is expressly affirmed that the elect were chosen " to be 
holy," and " to be conformed to the image of his Son," and not be- 
cause these were foreseen ; faith and repentance, therefore, are the 
consequents, not the grounds of election, Kom. viii., 29 ; Eph. i., 
4 ; ii., 10 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13 ; 1 Pet. i., 2. 

5th. Man, antecedently to election, could not have been fore- 
seen as repentant and believing, because human nature can bring 
forth no such fruits. But God elects his people to grace, and 
through grace to faith and to all the fruits thereof. Therefore, 
" whom he did predestinate them he also called." — Kom. viii., 30 ; 
2 Thess. ii., 13, 14 

6th. The elect and the effectually called are the same, and the 
calling is based upon the election, 2 Tim. i., 9, 10 ; Rev. xvii., 
14— See Chapter XXV. 

7th. All the elect shall believe, John x., 16 and 27-29 ; vi., 
37-39 ; xvii., 2, 9, 24, and only the elect believe, and because 
they are such, John x., 26 ; Acts xiii., 48 ; ii., 47. 

16. What argument may be drawn from the nature of the ob- 
jections to Paul's doctrine, with ivhich the Apostle deals in the 
9th chapter of Romans ? 

Paul's doctrine is indentical with the Calvinistic view. 1st. 
Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he 
notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those 
brought against ours. The design of the whole passage is to 
prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar 
people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel. 

This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced not 
the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spiritual 



CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE. 181 

seed. 2d. That " God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution 
of his favors." 

But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objections 
are introduced and answered by Paul. 

1st. It is unjust for God thus of his mere good pleasure to 
show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise ob- 
jection is made against our doctrine at the present time also. 
" It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as 
more false, more cruel, and more unjust." — Methodist Doctrinal 
Tracts, pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two arguments. 
(1.) God claims the right " I will have mercy on whom I will 
have mercy," vs. 15, 16. (2.) God in his providence exercises the 
right, as in the case of Pharoah, vs. 17, 18. 

2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent 
with the liberty and accountability of men. The same objection 
is made against our doctrine now also. 

Paul answers this objection by condescending to no appeal to 
human reason, but simply (1.) by asserting God's sovereignty as 
creator, and man's dependence as creature, and (2.) by asserting 
the just exposure of all men alike to wrath as sinners. — See Ana- 
lysis of chap, ix., 6-24, in Hodge's Com. on Komans. 

17. How can the doctrine of gratuitous election he reconciled 
ivith the justice of God ? 

Gratuitous election as the ultimate ground of salvation is not 
only clearly consistent with justice, but it is the only conceivable 
principle which is so. Justice necessarily holds all sinners alike 
as destitute of all claims upon God's favor, and will admit of sal- 
vation being offered at all only on the ground of sovereign favor. 
The essence of salvation by the gospel is that it is of grace, not 
of debt. — Lam. iii., 22 ; Kom. iv., 4, 5 ; xi., 6 ; Eph. i., 6, 7 ; 
ii., 8-10. If this be so it is evident that while no one can be 
saved upon any other ground than that of a gratuitous election, 
it rests only with God himself to save all, many, few, or none. 
Justice can not demand that because some are saved all must be. 
Those not elected are simply left to be dealt with according to 
justice for their own sins. There is a lurking feeling among 
many that somehow God owes to all men at least a full opportu- 
nity of being saved through Christ. If so there was no grace in 



182 PREDESTINATION. 

Christ's dying. " I reject/' says Wesley, Meth. Doc. Tracts, pp. 
25, 26, " the assertion that God might justly have passed hy me 
and all men, as a bold, precarious assertion, utterly unsupported 
by holy Scripture." Then, we say, of course the gospel was of 
debt, not of grace. 

18. How does this doctrine consist with the general benevo- 
lence of God? 

The only difficulty at this point is to reconcile the general be- 
nevolence of God with the fact that he, being infinitely wise and 
powerful, should have admitted a system involving the sin, final 
impenitence, and consequent damnation of any. But this diffi- 
culty presses equally upon both systems. 

The facts prove that God's general benevolence is not incon- 
sistent with his allowing some to be damned for their sins. This 
is all that reprobation means. Gratuitous election, or the posi- 
tive choice of some does not rest upon God's general benevolence, 
but upon his special love to his own, John xvii., 6, 23 ; Kom. ix., 
11-13 ; 1 Thess. v., 9. 

19. How does this doctrine consist with the general gospel 
offer ? 

In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation 
sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to 
every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives of 
duty, hope, fear, etc., which ought to induce every one to accept 
it, solemnly promising that whosoever comes in no wise shall be 
cast out. Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can prevent any 
one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoying it. 

The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to 
that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will 
come. 

There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling 
God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great 
majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses, 
by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer ; especially 
when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly in- 
crease their guilt and misery. 



ASSURANCE POSSIBLE. 183 

20. How far is assurance of our election possible, and on 
ivhat grounds does such assurance rest ? 

An unwavering and certain assurance of the fact of our elec- 
tion is possible in this life, for whom God predestinates them he 
also calls, and whom he calls he justifies, and we know that whom 
he justifies, he also sanctifies. Thus the fruits of the Spirit prove 
sanctification, and sanctification proves effectual calling, and 
effectual calling election.— See 2 Pet. i., 5-10 ; 1 John ii., 3. 

Besides this evidence of our own gracious states and acts, we 
have the Spirit of adoption, who witnesseth with our spirits and 
seals us. — Kom. viii., 16, 17 ; Eph. iv., 30. 

In confirmation of this we have the example of the apostles 
(2 Tim. i., 12) and of many Christians. 

21. What is reprobation ? 

Keprobation is the aspect which God's eternal decree presents 
in its relation to that portion of the human race which shall be 
finally condemned for their sins. 

It is, 1st, negative, in as much as it consists in passing over 
these, and refusing to elect them to life ; and, 2d, positive, in as 
much as they are condemned to eternal misery. 

In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply sov- 
ereign, since those passed over were no worse than those elected, 
and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing 
over was the sovereign good pleasure of God. 

In respect to its positive element, reprobation is not sovereign, 
but simply judicial, because God inflicts misery in any case only 
as the righteous punishment of sin. " The rest of mankind God 
was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own 
will, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for 
their sins." — Con. Faith, Chap. III., Sec. 7. 

22. How may this doctrine of reprobation be proved to be 
true ? 

1st. It is involved in the doctrine of unconditional election, 
and is therefore established by all the evidence upon which that 
doctrine rests, (see above, question 15.) 

2d. It is directly taught in such passages as the following : 



184 PREDESTINATION. 

Kom. ix., 10-24 ; 1 Pet. ii., 8 ; 2d Pet. ii., 12 : Jude 4; Kev. 
xiii., 8. 

23. What is the objection to this doctrine stated, (Kom. ix., 
19 7 ) and how does Paul answer it ? 

" Why doth he yet find fault ?" If he has not given gracious 
ability to obey, how can he command. — See also Methodist Doc- 
trinal Tracts, p. 171. 

The apostle answers by showing, 1st, (verses 20, 21,) that God 
is under no obligation to extend his grace to all or to any ; 
and, 2d, that the " vessels of wrath" were condemned for their 
own sins, to manifest God's just wrath, while the "vessels of 
mercy" were chosen not for any good in them, but to manifest his 
glorious grace (verses 22, 23). 

24. In what sense is God said to harden men (see Kom. i., 
24-28, and ix., 18) ? 

This is doubtless a judicial act wherein God withdraws from 
sinful men, whom he has not elected to life, for the just punish- 
ment of their sins, all gracious influences, and leaves them to the 
unrestrained tendencies of their own hearts, and to the uncoun- 
teracted influences of the world and the devil. 

25. How can the doctrine of reprobation be reconciled with 
the holiness of God ? 

Reprobation leaves men in sin, and thus leads to the increase 
of sin throughout eternity. How then can God, in consistency 
with his holiness, form a purpose the designed effect of which 
is to leave men in sin, and thus lead inevitably to the increase 
of sin. 

But it is acknowledged by Arminians as well as Calvinists, 
that God did create the human race in spite of his certain fore- 
knowledge that sin would be largely occasioned thereby, and he 
did create individual men in spite of his certain foreknowledge 
that these very men would continue eternally to sin. The sim- 
ple difficulty is, the fact that God does not convert all men. 

26. What is the practical bearing of this doctrine on Chris- 
tian experience and conduct ? 



PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 185 

It must be remembered, 1st. That this truth is not inconsis- 
tent with, but is part of the same gracious system with the 
equally certain principles of the moral liberty and responsibility 
of man, and the free offers of the gospel to all. 2d. That the 
sole rule of our duty is the commands, threatenings, and prom- 
ises of God clearly expressed in the gospel, and not this decree of 
election, which he never reveals except in its consequents of effec- 
tual calling, faith, and holy living. 

When thus held the doctrine of predestination — 

1st. Exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, 
while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just dis- 
pleasure with sin. 

2d. It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is 
entirely of grace. That no one can either complain, if passed 
over, or boasts himself, if saved. 

3d. It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair, and the 
cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ. 

4th. In the case of the believer, who has the witness in him- 
self, this doctrine at once deepens his humility, and elevates his 
confidence to the full assurance of hope. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

1. What is the primary signification, and what the biblical 
usage of the word a-ns ? 

"1st. Strictly, To hew, cutout. 2d. To form, make, produce, 
(whether out of nothing or not) Gen. i., 1, 21, 27 ; ii., 3, 4 ; Isa. 
xliii., 1, 7 ; xlv., 1 ; lxv., 18 ; Ps. Ii., 12 ; Jer. xxxi., 22; Amos 
iv., 13. Mphal, 1st. To be created, Gen. ii., 4; v., 2. 2d. To be 
born, Ps. cii., 19 ; Ezek. xxi., 35. Piel. 1st. To hew, cut down, 
e. g., a wood, Josh, xvii., 15, 18. 2d. To cut down (with the 
sword,) to hilly Ezek. xxiii., 47. 3d. To form, engrave, mark out, 
Ezek. xxi., 24." — Gesenius' Lex. 

2. What different theories have been advocated in opposition 
to the doctrine of creation ? 

Among the ancient philosophers of every school it was uni- 
versally accepted as an indubitable axiom that the origination of 
any new existence out of nothing is impossible, *. e., ex nihilo nihil 
fit. All, therefore, theists and atheists alike, repudiated the idea of 
creation. Plato held that there are two eternal, self-existent prin- 
ciples, God and matter, which exist coordinately in an indivisible 
unsuccessive eternity ; that time and the actual phenomenal world 
which exists in time, are the work of God, who freely molds 
matter into forms which image his own infinitely perfect and 
eternal ideas. Aristotle also held that God and matter are co- 
ordinately self-existent and eternal ; but he differed from Plato 
in regarding God as eternally self-active in organizing the world 
out of matter, and consequently in regarding the universe thus 
organized as eternal as well as the mere matter of which it is 
formed. — Ancient Phil., W. Archer Butler, Series 3, Lectures 



OPPOSING THEORIES. 187 

1 and 2. These, however, recognized God as the real author of 
the universe as a harmonious system. The Atomists, of whom 
Leucippus and Democritus were the first teachers, were, on the 
other hand, Atheists and Materialists. They held that the only 
self-existent principle of all things was an infinite number of 
atoms which from eternity move together in obedience to certain 
necessaiy forces, and in their fortuitous concourse combined and 
constituted the various forms and systems of bodies which com- 
pose the universe, as well as the intelligent and sensitive souls of 
men, which are as really material as their bodies, or any of the 
grosser forms of matter. This system was adopted in its essential 
features by the Epicureans. — Bitters' Hist, of Ancient Phil., 
Book VI., chap. ii. 

Since the Christian era, all who have acknowledged the Holy 
Scriptures to be the word of God have agreed in maintaining the 
doctrine of God's absolute creation of the universe, alike matter 
and form, out of nothing by his mere power ; although some of 
the schoolmen, following Aristotle, have held that God created 
the world from eternity. The Manichaeans of the third and fourth 
centuries, an entirely antichristian sect, rejecting the Old Testa- 
ment and corrupting the Xew, maintained the coordinate, eter- 
nal self-existence of two worlds, of spirit and light and of matter 
and darkness, presided over by two great antagonistic beings. 
Our present system is the result of the invasion of the world of 
light by the prince of darkness, and the consequent entanglement 
of a portion of that spiritual world with gross matter. The 
spirits of men belong naturally to the one world, their bodies and 
material nature generally to the other. All sin and suffering re- 
sult from the evil inherent in matter. The object of Christ's 
mission was to deliver our spirits from our bodies, which it is the 
great end of all practical religion to mortify and subdue. In 
modern times the cleniers of the doctrine of absolute creation ex 
nihilo, have been either Pantheists or Atheists. For a statement 
of the essential elements of Pantheism, see below, Chapter I., 
question 35. The Atheists have differed among themselves ; 
some maintaining that the present system of the universe has 
continued just as it now is in unbroken succession from eternity ; 
some resorting to the atomic theory of the ancients, and others 
holding to an endless development of all things from their pri- 



188 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

mordial elementary principles. This doctrine of development has 
received its most perfect scientific exposition in La Place's 
Nebular Hypothesis, wherein he traces the evolution of the whole 
solar system by the rigid application of known mechanical prin- 
ciples, from a condition of intensely heated vapor, rotating on its 
axis from west to east, precisely similar to that of many nebulous 
bodies now existing in the universe. As an account of the suc- 
cessive stages through which God has carried his work of creating 
the world, in which sense this theory is very generally accepted 
by Christian philosophers, the nebular hypothesis is a peerless 
monument of its author's philosophical genius. But as an ac- 
count of the manner in which the world might have come into 
existence without the intervention of either a divine wisdom or 
power, in which sense the author intended it, it is an equally 
eminent monument of his wickedness and folly. 

3. How may creation ex niliilo be proved from Scripture ? 

1st. The Hebrew word translated create in Gen. i., 1, has a 
sense precisely equivalent to our word make, and it is the least 
indefinite term in the whole language that Moses could have 
selected if his purpose was to affirm the absolute creation of the 
world by God out of nothing. And a more limited sense can not 
rationally, and has never, by competent interpreters, been put 
upon these words, occurring as they do at the very opening of 
the inspired account of the " generations of the heavens and of 
the earth," without connection with any other proposition, and 
absolutely without limitations of any kind. 

2d. This doctrine is implied in several other passages of Scrip- 
ture, Kom. iv., 17 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Heb. xi., 3. 

2d. This doctrine is also implied in all those innumerable 
passages of Scripture which declare that God's power and sover- 
eignty are both infinite. 

4. What other arguments may be adduced in proof of crea- 
tion, properly so called ? 

1st. The doctrine that matter is self-existent and eternal, and 
that God has simply formed the world out of preexisting material 
is plainly inconsistent with his absolute independence and all- 



ABSOLUTE CREATION PROVED. 189 

sufficiency. It evidently limits the Creator, and makes him in 
working dependent upon the nature of the material with which 
he works. 

2d. It is inconsistent with the feeling of absolute dependence 
of the creature upon the Creator, which is inherent in every heart, 
and which is inculcated in all the teachings of the Scriptures. It 
could not be said that " he upholds all things by the word of his 
power/' nor that " we live, and move, and have our being in 
him/' unless he be absolutely the Creator as well as the Former 
of all things. 

3d. It is manifest from the testimony of consciousness. (1.) 
That our souls are distinct individual entities, and not parts or 
particles of God ; (2.) that they are not eternal. It follows con- 
sequently that they were created. And if the creation of the 
spirits of men ex nihilo be once admitted, there remains no special 
difficulty with respect to the absolute creation of matter. 

4th. Although the absolute origination of any new existence 
out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one 
whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or 
foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency 
of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to 
believe. 

oth. After having admitted the necessary self-existence of an 
infinitely wise and powerful personal Spirit, whose existence, 
upon the hypothesis of his possessing the power of absolute crea- 
tion, is sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the universe, 
it is unphilosophical gratuitously to multiply causes by suppos- 
ing the independent, eternal self-existence of matter also. 

6th. When the physical philosopher has analyzed matter to 
its ultimate atoms, and determined their essential primary prop- 
erties, he finds in them as strong evidence of a powerful antece- 
dent cause, and of a wisely designing mind, as he does in the 
most complex organizations of nature ; for what are the ultimate 
properties of matter but the elementary constituents of the uni- 
versal laws of nature, and the ultimate conditions of all phe- 
nomena. If design discovered in the constitution of the universe 
as finished proves a divine Former, by equal right must the same 
design discovered in the elementary constitution of matter prove a 
divine Creator. 



190 THE CREATION OF THE WOKLD. 

7th. Those among theistic thinkers who have been tempted 
to regard matter as eternal and self-existent, have been influenced 
by the vain hope of explaining thereby the existence of moral 
evil in consistency with the holiness of God. They would refer all 
the phenomena of sin to an essentially evil principle inherent in 
matter, and would justify God by maintaining that he has done 
all that in him lay to limit that evil. Now, besides the inconsis- 
tency of this theory's attempt to vindicate the holiness of God at 
the expense of his independence, it proceeds upon absurd princi- 
ples, as appears from the following considerations : (1.) Moral 
evil is in its essence an attribute of spirit. To refer it to a ma- 
terial origin must logically lead to the grossest materialism. (2.) 
The entire Christian system of religion, and the example of Christ 
is in opposition to that asceticism and " neglecting of the body/' 
(Col. ii., 23) which necessarily springs from the view that matter 
is the ground of sin. (3.) When God created the material uni- 
verse he pronounced his works " very good." (4.) The second 
Person of the holy trinity assumed a real material body into per- 
sonal union with himself. (5.) The material creation, now 
"made subject to vanity" through man's sin, is to be renovated 
and made the temple in which the Godrnan shall dwell forever. — 
See below, Chap. XXXVI., question 17. (6.) The work of Christ in 
delivering his people from their sin does not contemplate the re- 
nunciation of the material part of our natures, but our bodies, 
which are now " the members of Christ," and the " temples of the 
Holy Ghost," are at the resurrection to be transformed into the 
likeness of his glorified body. Yet nothing could be more absurd 
than to argue that the o&fm nvevfiaTL/cov is not as litterally ma- 
terial as the present oQ>\ia tfvxticbv. (7.) If the cause of evil is 
essentially inherent in matter, and if its past developments have 
occurred in spite of God's efforts to limit it, what certain ground 
of confidence can any of us have for the future. 

5. Prove that the work of creation is in Scripture attributed 
to God absolutely, i. <?., to each of the three persons of the Trinity 
coordinately, and not to either as his special personal function ? 

1st. To the Godhead absolutely, Gen. i., 1, 26. 2d. To the 
Father, 1 Cor. viii., 6. 3d. To the Son, Johni., 3 ; Col. i., 16, 17. 
4th. To the Holy Spirit, Gen. i., 2 ; Job xxvi., 13 ; Ps. civ., 30. 



GEOLOGY. 191 

6. Hoiv can it be proved that no creature can create ? 

1st. From the nature of the work. It appears to us that the 
work of absolute creation ex nihilo is an infinite exercise of power. 
It is to us inconceivable because infinite ; and it can belong, there- 
fore, only to that Being who, for the same reason, is incomprehen- 
sible. 2d. The Scriptures distinguish Jehovah from all creatures, 
and from false gods, and establish his sovereignty and rights as 
the true God by the fact that he is the Creator, Is. xxxvii., 16 ; 
xl., 12, 13 ; liv., 5 ; Ps. xcvi., 5 ; Jer. x., 11, 12. 3d. If it 
were admitted that a creature could create, then the works of 
creation would never avail to lead the creature to an infallible 
knowledge that his creator was the eternal and self-existent God. 

7. What opinion do modern geologists entertain as to the an- 
tiquity of our globe, and upon ivhat does that opinion rest ? 

The universal opinion of all geologists, Christians and infidels, 
theists and atheists, is that the material composing our globe has 
been in existence for incalculable ages ; that it has passed through 
many successive stages in its transition probably from a gaseous, 
certainly from a molten condition, to its present constitution ; 
and that it has successively been inhabited by many different or- 
ders of organized beings, each in turn adapted to the physical 
conditions of the globe in its successive stages, and generally 
marked in each stage by an advancing scale of organization, from 
the more elementary to the more complex and more perfect forms, 
until the advent of man, the last and most perfect of all, about 
six thousand years ago. The facts upon which this opinion is 
founded are barely indicated in the following summary condensed 
from the 2d chapter of Pres. Hitchcock's able work on " Ke- 
ligion of Geology." 

1st. The rocks are in their present form evidently the result 
of the operation of second causes. " Some of them have been 
melted and reconsolidated, and crowded in between others, or 
spread over them. Others have been worn down into mud, sand, 
and gravel,- by water and other agents, and again cemented to- 
gether, after having enveloped multitudes of animals and plants, 
which are now embedded as organic remains." They bear upon 
them as indubitable marks of change and wear as any of the an- 
cient works of man. To infer that they were created in their 



192 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

present form would violate every principle of analogical reasoning 
upon which all science proceeds. 

2d. " Processes are now going on by which rocks are formed, 
on a small scale, of the same character as those which constitute 
the great mass of the earth. Hence it is fair to infer (1.) that 
all the rocks were formed in a similar manner. (2.) That by as- 
certaining the rate at which rocks are now forming we may form 
some estimate as to the time requisite to produce those constitut- 
ing the crust of the earth." 

3d. All the stratified rocks, especially that large proportion of 
them which contain the remains of animals and plants, appear to 
have been formed from fragments of other rocks, worn down by 
the action of water and atmospheric agencies. Yet this process 
is very slow. 

4th. " Yet there must have been time enough, since the crea- 
tion, to deposit at least ten miles of rocks in perpendicular thick- 
ness," by this process of attrition, washing, precipitation, drying, 
and hardening by means of heat, pressure, and the admixture of 
iron or lime. 

5th. It is certain that since man existed, or in the last six 
thousand years, materials for the production of rock have not ac- 
cumulated to the average thickness of more than one or two hun- 
dred feet, or about one five hundreth part of the entire thickness 
of the stratified rocks that have been formed since the creation. 

6th. During the deposition of the stratified rocks many changes 
must have occurred in the temperature and the materials held in 
solution by the waters which deposited them, and in the positions 
of the rocks themselves, as they have been bent and dislocated 
while in a soft state. 

7th. " Numerous races of animals and plants must have occu- 
pied the globe previous to those which now inhabit it, and have 
successively passed away as catastrophes occurred, or as the climate 
became unfit for their residence. Thirty thousand species have 
already been dug from the rocks, and with few exceptions none 
of them corresponding to those now living upon the earth." " Not 
less than four or five, and probably more, entire races have passed 
away, and been succeeded by recent ones, so that the globe has 
actually changed all its inhabitants half a dozen times." 

8th. Even since all the various strata of rocks have been in 



GEOLOGY. 193 

their present state and position changes have been accomplished, 
e. g., in the formation of deltas, and in the gradual wearing away of 
solid rock in channels by rivers (often hundreds of feet deep, and 
for miles in length), which must have required many thousands 
of years. 

9th. The primary rocks, which everywhere form the founda- 
tion upon which the stratified rocks rest, and out of the fragments 
of which, by washing and wearing, the stratified rocks have been 
formed, were themselves evidently formed when the whole globe 
was gradually cooling from a condition of universal fusion from 
heat. 

8. What are the different methods which have been suggested 
of reconciling the facts developed by geology with the truth of the 
Mosaic record of creation ? 

1st. The method adopted by Dr. Chalmers, President Hitch- 
cock, and the great majority of Christian geologists, is as follows : 
The first verse of Genesis, disconnected from the subsequent con- 
text, affirms the truth that in the beginning, at some remote and 
unrevealed period in the past, God created the whole universe out 
of nothing ; and then after an interval, the measure of which is 
not given, the subsequent verses relate the general order in which 
God, in the space of six natural days, established the present 
order of this world, adapting it to the residence of its present 
inhabitants, and in which he created the present races of plants 
and animals. This interpretation of the Mosaic account of the 
creation was advanced as probable by many eminent biblical 
scholars before the rise of geological science, and it is now almost 
universally adopted by theologians as well as by geologists. 
There appears to be no objection to it upon any ground, and, as 
a general adjustment, it appears to be the best possible in the 
present state of our knowledge. It is only a general adjustment, 
however, leaving many questions of detail unsolved, both as to 
the interpretation of the record of the six days' work, and as to 
the reconciliation of the facts of geology, and the present scien- 
tific interpretation thereof, with the inspired record. 

2d. In order to avoid several difficulties experienced in at- 
tempting to reconcile the Mosaic account of the six days' work 
with the science, Dr. John Pye Bmith proposed to supplement 



194 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

the above method of reconciliation with the hypothesis that the 
term earth in Genesis did not signify the whole globe, but " the 
part of our globe which God was adapting for the dwelling-place 
of man and animals connected with him/' that is, "a large part 
of Asia, lying between the Caucasian Ridge, the Caspian Sea, and 
Tartary on the north, the Persian and Indian Seas on the south, 
and the high mountain ridges which run at a considerable dis- 
tance on their eastern and western flanks/ ' 

3d. Many have argued that the days spoken of in this pas- 
sage in Genesis were not natural days of twenty-four hours, 
" but periods of great, though indefinite length, during which all 
the changes exhibited by the strata of rocks took place," and in 
which the several orders of organized vegetable and animal beings 
were successively created, man being brought into existence at 
the end of the closing day of creation, and the Sabbath day of 
God's rest from his creation work continuing ever since. This 
view has been eloquently argued and illustrated in a comparison 
of the Mosaic text with the facts developed by geology, by the 
late Hugh Miller, in his last work, " The testimony of the Rocks." 
After all, however, theologians and geologists agree in regarding 
this method of reconciliation as doing equal violence to the lan- 
guage of the record and to the facts of the science. — President 
Hitchcock's " Religion of Geology." 

9. What principles ought to be borne in mind by Christians 
in view of apparent discrepancies between the interpretation of 
nature by science, and the interpretation of the Scriptures by 
theologians ? 

1st. All truth must be consistent. God's works and God's 
word are alike absolute truth ; whatever discrepancies appear, the 
difficulty must wholly exist in man's imperfect interpretation, 
either of the works upon the one hand, or of the word upon the 
other. 

%&. Revelation was not designed to anticipate the natural 
progress of science, consequently the Scriptures teach us nothing 
concerning the interpretation of the phenomenal world of nature, 
but uniformly speak of phenomena as they ajjpear, and in the 
common language of the age and people among whom they were 
written^ and viewer of physical causes or laws as they are in fact. 



REVELATION AND SCIENCE, 195 

Thus they speak of the sun "rising/' "setting," "going back/' 
" standing still," etc., etc. 

3d. From the commencement of modern science apparent in- 
consistencies between nature and revelation have been constantly 
emerging, which, for the time, have occasioned great offense to 
zealous believers, but in every instance, without exception, the 
error has been found to exist either in the too hasty generalizations 
of science from imperfect knowledge of the facts, or from a pre- 
judiced interpretation of the Scriptures, and invariably matured 
science has been found not only to harmonize perfectly with the 
letter of the word naturally interpreted, but, moreover, gloriously 
to illustrate the grand moral principles and doctrines therein 
revealed. 

4th. There is no difficulty experienced in the attempt to re- 
concile Moses' account of the "genesis of the heavens and earth" 
with the science of geology, which is different either in kind or 
degree from those experienced in every attempt to reconcile pro- 
phecy with the facts of history. History and geological science 
are both in transitu ; when they are finished the perfect har- 
mony of both with revelation will be apparent to all. 

5th. Christians should always rejoice in every advance of 
science, being assured that thereby the truth of their religion and 
the glory of their Grocl must be confirmed and manifested. They 
should equally avoid all premature adjustments of the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture to imperfect science in process of development, 
and all injurious and impotent jealousies of scientific discoveries 
or speculations, when apparently hostile to their traditional in- 
terpretation of Scripture. Perfect faith casteth out all 

FEAR. 



C HAP TEE, XII. 



ANGELS. 



1. What are the different senses in ivhich the word dyyeXog, 
angel, or messenger, is used in Scripture ? 

"Ordinary messengers, Job i., 14 ; Luke vii., 24 ; ix., 52 ; 
prophets, Isa. xlii., 19; Mai. iii., 1; priests, Mai. ii., 7; ministers 
of the New Testament, Rev. i., 20 ; also impersonal agents, as 
pillar of cloud, Ex. xiv., 19 ; pestilence, 2 Sam. xxiv., 16, 17 ; 
winds, Ps. civ., 4 ; plagues, called ' evil angels/ lxxviii., 49 ; 
Paul's thorn in the flesh, e angel of Satan/ 2 Cor. xii., 7/' 
Also the second person of the Trinity, " Angel of his presence ;" 
" Angel of the Covenant/' Isa. lxiii., 9 ; Mai. iii., 1. But the 
term is chiefly applied to the heavenly intelligences, Matt, xxv., 
31.— See Kitto's Bib. Ency. 

2. What are the scriptural designations of angels, and how 
far are those designations expressive of their nature and offices ? 

Good angels (for evil spirits, see question 13) are designated 
in Scripture as to their nature, dignity and power, as " spirits/' 
Heb. i., 14 ; " thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, mights," 
Eph. i., 21, and Col. i., 16 ; " sons of God," Luke xx., 36 ; Job 
i., 6 ; " mighty angels," and " powerful in strength," 2 Thes. i., 
7 ; Ps. ciil, 20 ; "holy angels," "elect angels," Luke ix., 26 ; 1 
Tim. v., 21 ; and as to the offices they sustain in relation to God 
and man, they are designated as " angels or messengers," and as 
" ministering spirits," Heb. i., 13, 14. 

3. What were the cherubim ? 

" They were ideal creatures, compounded of four parts, those 
namely, of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle." " The predomi- 



CHERUBIM. 197 

nant appearance was that of a man, but the number of faces, feet, 
and hands differed according to circumstances." — Ezek. i., 6, com- 
pare with Ezek. xli., 18, 19, and Ex. xxv., 20. 

To the same ideal beings is applied the designation " living 
creatures," (Ezek. i., 5-22 ; x., 15, 17 ; Kev. iv., 6-9 ; v., 6-14 ; 
vi., 1-7 ; vii., 11 ; xiv., 3 ; xv. 7 ; xix., 4,) rendered in our ver- 
sion " beasts." 

" They were symbolical of the highest properties of creature 
life, and of these as the outgoings and manifestation of the divine 
life ; but they were typical of redeemed and glorified manhood, 
or prophetical representations of it, as that in which these pro- 
perties were to be combined and exhibited. 

" They were appointed immediately after the fall to man's 
original place in the garden, and to his office in connection with 
the tree of life." — G-en. iii., 24. 

" The other and more common connection in which the cherub 
appears is with the throne or peculiar dwelling-place of God. In 
the holy of holies of the tabernacle, Ex. xxv., 22, he was called 
the God who dwelleth between and sitteth upon the cherubim, 
1 Sam. iv., 4 ; Ps. lxxx., 1 ; Ezek. i., 26, 28 ; whose glory is 
above the cherubim. In Eev. iv., 6, we read of the living crea- 
tures who were in the midst of the throne and around about it/' 

" What does this bespeak but the wonderful fact brought out 
in the history of redemption, that man's nature is to be exalted 
to the dwelling-place of the Godhead ? In Christ it is taken, 
go to speak, into the very bosom of the Deity ; and because it is 
so highly honored in him, it shall attain to more than angelic 
glory in his members." — Fairbairn's Typology, Pt. II., Chapter 
I., Section 3. 

4. What is the etymology of the word seraphim, and what is 
taught in Scripture concerning them ? 

The word signifies burning, bright, dazzling. It occurs in 
the Bible only once. — Isa. vi., 2, 6. It probably presents, under 
a different aspect, the ideal beings commonly designated cheru- 
bim and living creatures. 

5. Is there any evidence that angels are of various orders and 
ranks ? 



198 



ANGELS. 



That such distinctions certainly exist appears evident, 1st. 
From the language of Scripture, Gabriel is distiguished as one that 
stands in the presence of God, (Luke i., 19,) evidently in some 
preeminent sense ; and Michael as one of the chief princes, Dan. 
x., 13. Observe also the epithets archangel, thrones, dominions, 
principalities, powers, Jude 9; Eph. i., 21. 2d. From the analogy 
of the fallen angels, see Eph. ii., 2; Matt, ix., 34. 3d. From the 
analogy of human society and of the universal creation. Through- 
out all God's works gradation of rank prevails. 

6. Do the Scriptures speak of more than one archangel, and 
is he to be considered a creature ? 

This term occurs but twice in the New Testament, and in 
both instances it is used in the singular number, and preceded by 
the definite article o, 1 Thes. iv., 16 ; Jude 9. Thus the term is 
evidently restricted to one person, called, Jude 9, Michael, who, 
in Dan. x., 13, and xii., 1, is called "one of the chief princes," 
and "the great prince," and in Kev. xii., 7, is said to have fought 
with his angels against the dragon and his angels. 

Many suppose that the archangel is the Son of God. Others 
suppose that he is one of the highest class of creatures, since he 
is called " one of the chief princes/' Dan. x., 13 ; and since divine 
attributes are never ascribed to him. 



7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the number and 
power of angels ? 

1st. Concerning their number, revelation determines only that 
it is very great. " Thousand thousands, and ten thousand times 
ten thousand," Dan. vii., 10. "More than twelve legions of 
angels," Matt, xxvi., 53. " Multitude of the heavenly host," 
Luke ii., 13. "Myriads of angels," Heb. xii., 22. 

2d. Concerning their power, the Scriptures teach that it is very 
great when exercised both in the material and in the spiritual 
worlds. They are called " mighty angels," and are said to " ex- 
cel in strength," 2 Thess. i., 7 ; Ps. ciii., 20 ; 2 Kings xix., 35. 
Their power, however, is not creative, but, like that of man, it 
can be exercised only coordinately with the general laws of na- 
ture, in the absolute sense of that word. 



SATAN. 199 

8. What are their employments ? 

1st. They behold the face of G-od in heaven, adore the divine 
perfections, study every revelation he makes of himself in provi- 
dence and redemption, and are perfectly blessed in his presence 
and service. — Matt, xviii., 10 ; Kev. v., 11 ; 1 Pet. i., 12. 

2d. God employs them as his instruments in administering 
the affairs of his providence, Gen. xxviii., 12 ; Dan. x., 13. (1.) 
The laAv " was ordained by angels," Gal. iii., 19 ; Acts vii., 53 ; 
Heb. ii., 2. (2.) They are instruments of good to God's people, 
Heb. i., 14 ; Acts xii., 7 ; Ps. xci., 10-12. (3.) They execute 
judgment upon God's enemies, Acts xii., 23 ; 2 Kings xix., 35 ; 
1 Chron. xxi., 16. (4.) They will officiate in the final judgment, 
in separating the good from the bad, in gathering the elect, and in 
bearing them up to meet the Lord in the air, Matt, xiii., 30-39 ; 
xxiv., 31 ; 1 Thess. iv., 17. 

9. How are apparitions of angels to be accounted for ? 

See Num. xxii., 31, etc. What was apparent to the senses 
were doubtless miraculously constituted bodies assumed for the 
occasion for the purpose of holding intercourse with man through 
his bodily senses, and then laid aside. 

10. What are the names by which Satan is distinguished, and 
what is their import ? 

Satan, which signifies adversary, Luke x., 18. The Devil 
(6id!3oXog always occurs in the singular) signifying slanderer, Rev. 
xx., 2 ; Apollyon, which means destroyer, and Abbadon, Rev. 
ix., 11 ; Beelzebub, the prince of devils, from the god of the 
Ekronites, chief among the heathen divinities, all of which the 
Jews regarded as devils, 2 Kings, i., 2 ; Matt, xii., 24 ; Angel of 
the Bottomless Pit, Rev., ix., 11 ; Prince of the World, John 
xii., 31 ; Prince of Darkness, Eph. vi., 12 ; A Roaring Lion, 1 
Pet. v., 8 ; a Sinner from the Beginning, 1 John iii., 8 ; Accuser, 
Rev. xii., 10 ; Belial, 2 Cor., vi., 15 ; Deceiver, Rev. xx., 10 ; 
Dragon, Rev. xii., 7 ; Liar and Murderer, John viii., 44 ; Levia- 
than, Is., xxvii., 1 ; Lucifer, Is. xiv., 12 ; Serpent, Is. xxvii., 1 ; 
Tormentor, Matt, xviii., 34 ; God of this World, 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; 
he that hath the Power of Death, Heb. ii., 14. — See Cruden's 
Concordance. 



200 ANGELS. 

11. How may it be proved that Satan is a personal being, and 
not a mere personification of evil ? 

Throughout all the various hooks of Scripture Satan is always 
consistently spoken of as a person, and personal attributes are 
predicated of him. Such passages as Matt, iv., 1-11, and John 
viii., 44, are decisive. 

12. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the relation of 
Satan to other evil spirits and to our world ? 

Other evil spirits are called "his angels," Matt, xxv., 41 ; and 
he is called " Prince of Devils/' Matt, ix., 34 ; and " Prince of the 
powers of the Air," and " Prince of Darkness," Eph. vi., 12. This 
indicates that he is the master spirit of evil. 

His relation to this world is indicated by the history of the 
Fall, 2 Cor. xi., 3 ; Kev. xii., 9, and by such expressions as "God 
of this World," 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; and " Spirit that worketh in the 
children of disobedience," Eph. ii., 2 ; wicked men are said to be 
his children, 1 John iii., 10 ; he blinds the minds of those that 
believe not and leads them captive at his will, 2 Tim. ii., 26 ; he 
also pains, harasses and tempts God's true people as far as is per- 
mitted for their ultimate good, Luke xxii., 31 ; 2 Cor. xii., 7 ; 1 
Thess. ii., 18. 

13. What are the terms by which fallen spirits are desig- 
nated ? 

The Greek word 6 didSoXog , the devil, is in the original applied 
only to Beelzebub. Other evil spirits are called dal^oveg, daemons, 
Mark v., 12 (translated devils) ; unclean spirits, Mark v., 13 ; 
angels of the devil, Matt, xxv., 41 ; principalities, powers, rulers 
of the darkness of this world, Eph. vi., 12 ; angels that sinned, 2 
Pet. ii., 4 ; angels that kept not then first estate, but left their 
own habitation, Jude vi ; lying spirits, 2 Chron. xviii. 22. 

14. What power or agency over the bodies and souls of men 
is ascribed to them ? 

Satan, like all other finite beings, can only be in one place at a 
time ; yet all that is done by his agents being attributed to him, 
he appears to be practically ubiquitous. 



FALLEN ANGELS. 201 

It is certain that at times at least they nave exercised an in- 
explicable influence over the bodies of men, yet that influence is 
entirely subject to God's control, Job. ii., 7 ; Luke xiii., 16 ; 
Acts x., 38. They have caused and aggravated diseases, and ex- 
cited appetites and passions, 1 Cor. v., 5. Satan, in some sense, 
has the power of death, Heb. ii., 14. 

With respect to the souls of men, Satan and his angels are 
utterly destitute of any power either to change the heart or to 
coerce the will, their influence being simply moral, and exercised 
in the way of deception, suggestion, and persuasion. The de- 
scriptive phrases applied by the Scriptures to their working are 
such as — " the deceivableness of unrighteousness/' " power, signs, 
lying wonders," 2 Thess. ii., 9, 10 ; he " transforms himself into an 
angel of light," 2 Cor. xi., 14. If he can deceive or persuade he 
uses " wiles," Eph. vi., 11 ; "snares," 1 Tim. iii., 7 ; " depths," 
Rev. ii., 24 ; he " blinds the mind," 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; " leads captive 
the will," 2 Tim. ii., 26 ; and so "deceives the whole world," 
Rev. xii., 9. If he can not persuade he uses " fiery darts," Eph. 
vi., 16 ; and "bufferings," 2 Cor. xii., 7. 

As examples of his influence in tempting men to sin the 
Scriptures cite the case of Adam, Gen. iii.; of David, 1 Chron. 
xxi., 1 ; of Judas, Luke xxii., 3 ; Ananias and Saphira, Acts v., 
3 ; and the temptation of our blessed Lord, Matt. iv. 

15. Where do they reside, and what is the true interpretation 
of Eph. ii., 2, and vi., 12 ? 

These passages simply declare that evil spirits belong to the 
unseen spiritual world, and not to our mundane system. Nothing 
is taught us in Scripture as to the place of their residence, further 
than that they originally dwelt in and fell from heaven, that they 
now have access to men on earth, and that they will be finally 
sealed up in the lake of fire prepared for them, Rev. xx., 10 ; 
Matt. xxv. 41. 

16. By what terms ivere those possessed by evil spirits desig- 
nated ? 

They are called " demoniacs," translated possessed with devils, 
Matt, iv., 24 ; "having the spirit of an unclean devil," Matt, xv., 



202 ANGELS. 

22 ; " oppressed of the devil," Acts x., 38 ; " lunatics/' Matt, 
xvii., 15. 

17. What arguments are urged by those who regard the de- 
moniacs mentioned in the New Testament as simply diseased or 

2 



That we can not discriminate between the effects of de- 
moniacal possession and disease. That precisely the same 
symptoms have, in other cases, been treated as disease and 
cured. 

That, like witchcraft, the experience of such possessions has 
been confined to the most ignorant ages of the world. 

They argue further that this doctrine is inconsistent with 
clearly revealed principles. 1st. That the souls of dead men go 
immediately either to heaven or hell. 2d. That fallen angels are 
already shut up in chains and darkness in expectation of the final 
judgment, 2 Pet. ii., 4 ; Jude vi. 

They attempt to explain away the language of Christ and 
his apostles upon this subject by affirming, that as it was no part 
of their design to instruct men in the true science of nature or 
disease, they conformed their language on such subjects to the 
prevalent opinions of the people they addressed, calling diseases 
by the popular name, without intending thereby to countenance 
the theory of the nature of the disease, out of which the name 
originated. Just as we now call crazed people " lunatics," with- 
out believing in the influence of the moon upon them. — Kitto's 
Bib. Ency. 

18. How may it be proved that the demoniacs of the New 
Testament were really possessed of evil spirits ? 

The simple narratives of all the evangelists put it beyond per- 
adventure that Christ and his apostles did believe, and wished 
others to believe, that the demoniacs were really possessed with 
devils. 

They distinguish between possession and disease, Mark i., 32; 
Luke vi., 17, 18. 

The " daamons," as distinct from the " possessed," spoke 
(Mark v., 12), were addressed, commanded and rebuked by 
Christ, Mark i., 25, 34 ; ix., 25 ; Matt, viii., 32 ; xvii., 18. 



DEMONAICS. 203 

Their desires, requests and passions are distinguished from 
those of the possessed. Matt, viii., 31 ; Mark ix. ; 26, etc. The 
number of daemons in one person is mentioned, Mark xvi., 9. 
They went out of the "possessed" into the swine, Luke viii., 
32. We never speak of the moon entering into, and sore 
vexing a man, or being cast out of a lunatic, or of the moon 
crying aloud, etc. The argument of those who would explain 
away the force of Christ's language on this subject, therefore, 
fails. 



CHAPTER XIII. 



PROVIDENCE. 



1. Define the term providence. 

See Confession of Faith, Chapter V., and L. Cat., question 
18, and S. Cat., question 11. Providence, from pro and video, 
literally signifies foresight. Turrettin defines this term as includ- 
ing, in its widest sense, 1st, foreknowledge ; 2d, foreordination ; 
3d, the efficacious administration of the thing decreed. But in 
its common and technically proper sense, providence designates 
simply God's temporal preservation and governing of all things 
according to his eternal purpose. 

2. What are the three principal theories respecting the rela- 
tion which God sustains to the universe ? 

All the various views respecting G-od's relation to the uni- 
verse entertained among men may be classed under one or other 
of the following heads, and in general terms stated as follows : 

1st. The deistical, including those views which admitting 
more or less fully that, when Grod created the universe, he com- 
municated their inherent properties to all material elements and 
to spirits, and made them in their interaction subject to certain 
general laws, so constituted, as to bring forth in the ceaseless 
evolutions of events all his preordained ends, yet deny that Grod 
continues in immediate contact with each individual creature, or 
that he is now concerned in constant supervision and control of 
their actions and their destinies. His relation to the universe 
thus is like that of the maker, not of the keeper of a watch. The 
actions of men, therefore, must either be mechanically deter- 
mined like those of material bodies, or entirely fortuitous and be- 
yond the influence of Grod. 

2d. The pantheistic, including all those various views which 



DIFFERENT THEORIES. 205 

regard God as the only being in the universe, and the creature as 
in reality without separate existence, property, or agency, as only 
phenomenally distinct, and essentially more or less transient 
modes of the one universal divine being. — See above, Chapter I., 
question 35. 

3d. The true doctrine, established by Scripture and sober 
philosophical induction, occupies intermediate ground between 
the above extremes. The Christian theory of providence agrees 
with the deistical in maintaining that, at the creation, God en- 
dowed every element, material or spiritual, with inherent proper- 
ties after its kind, and made them all subject to general laws, 
thus constituting them in a real sense efficient second causes. On 
the other hand, it maintains, in opposition to the deistical theory, 
that God continues to support and control second causes in their 
action, and so to adjust the general laws which prevail in the 
several departments of nature as to direct all events, whether the 
actions of free agents or of unconscious matter, to the accomplish- 
ment of his own will. 

As God is infinite in his relation to time and to space, it is 
evident that the difference between the Deistical and Christian 
views of providence does not turn upon the question as to the 
time when God makes provision for the determination of each in- 
dividual event, but upon the question as to the nature of his relat- 
ion lo the creation. We maintain that the creature "lives, moves, 
and has its being in God," and that God, in the full exercise of 
his infinite wisdom, goodness, righteousness, and power, so directs 
and controls the actions of free agents freely, and of necessary 
agents necessarily, as at once not to coerce the nature of the 
agent, and yet infallibly to determine all things according to his 
eternal purpose. 

3. Wherein does preservation consist ? 

Preservation is that continued exercise of the divine energy 
whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures in being, and in the 
possession of all their inherent properties and qualities with which 
he has endowed them at their creation, or which they have sub- 
sequently acquired by habit or development. 

4. On what ground is it assumed that the universe would not 
continue to exist unless constantly upheld by God ? 



206 



PROVIDENCE. 



The old theologians held that, as the creature as such is not 
self-existent, it could no more continue to be than it could com- 
mence to be of itself, since the cause of its being is out of itself. 
This rationalistic argument, although logically plausible, is not 
certain. As by the law of inertia a body once moved ab extra 
will continue to move until stopped ab extra, so it might be that 
a being once created might continue to exist until annihilated ab 
extra. 

This doctrine, however, is eminently congruous to that sense 
of dependence which is an essential element of our religious na- 
ture, and it is clearly affirmed by Scripture. — Heb. i., 3 ; Neh. 
ix., 6 ; Job x., 12 ; Ps. civ., 27-30 ; Acts xvii., 28. 

5. State the argument for God's providential government of 
the world derived from his own perfections. 

1st. The stupendous fact that God is infinite in his being, in 
his relation to time and space, and in his wisdom and power, 
makes it evident that a universal providence is possible to him, 
and that all the difficulties and apparent contradictions involved 
therein to the eye of man are to be referred to our very limited 
capacity of understanding. 

2d. God's infinite wisdom makes it certain that he had a defi- 
nite object in view in the creation of the universe, and that he 
will not fail in the use of the best means to secure that object in 
all its parts. 

3d. His infinite goodness makes it certain that he would not 
leave his sensitive and intelligent creatures to the toils of a me- 
chanical, soulless fate ; nor his religious creatures to be divorced 
from himself, in whose communion their highest life consists. 

4th. His infinite righteousness makes it certain that he will 
continue to govern and reward and punish those creatures which 
he has made subject to moral obligations. 



6. State the argument from conscience. 

Conscience essentially involves a sense of our direct moral 
responsibility to God as a moral governor, and this, together with 
a profound sense of dependence, constitutes that religious senti- 
ment which is common to all men. But if God be a moral gov- 



ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE EVINCED IN NATURE. 207 

ernor, he can execute that function in relation to a being consti- 
tuted of body and soul, and conditioned as man is in this world, 
in no other conceivable way than through a comprehensive provi- 
dence, at once spiritual and physical, general and particular. 

7. State the argument from the intelligence evinced in the 
operations of nature. 

The great inductive argument for the being of God is based 
upon the evident traces of design in the universe. Now, just as 
the traces of design in the constitution of nature proves the exist- 
ence of a designing mind in the relation of creator, so the traces 
of design in the operations of nature prove the existence of a de- 
signing mind in the relation of providential ruler. 

The material elements, with their active properties, are all in- 
capable of design, yet we find all these elements so adjusted in all 
their proportions and relations as to work harmoniously in the 
order of certain general laws, and we find these general laws so 
adjusted in all their intricate coincidences and interferences, as, 
by movements simple and complex, fortuitous and regular, to 
work out harmoniously everywhere the most wisely and benefi- 
cently contrived results. The mechanical and chemical properties 
of material atoms ; the laws of vegetable and animal life ; the 
movements of sun, moon and stars in the heavens ; the luminous, 
calorific, and chemical radiance of the sun ; and the instinctive 
and voluntary movement of every living thing upon the face of 
the earth, are all mutually acting and reacting without concert 
or possible design of their own ; yet everywhere bringing forth 
the most wise and beneficent results. As the designing mind can 
not be found in any of the elements, nor in the resultant of all com- 
bined, it must be found in the presiding control of the Creator. 

8. How may this doctrine be established by the evidence af- 
forded by the general history of the world ? 

If the constitution of human nature (soul and body), in its 
elemental relations to human society, proves a designing mind in 
the relation of creator, exactly so must the wisely contrived 
results of human association, in general and in individual in- 
stances, prove the exercise of a designing mind in the relation of 
providential ruler. 



208 PROVIDENCE. 

Individual men and communities, it is true, differ in their ac- 
tion, from the elements of the external world, inasmuch as they 
act, 1st, freely, self-moved ; and, 2d, from design. Yet so nar- 
row is the sphere both of the foresight and the design of every 
individual agent, so great is the multiplicity of agents, and the 
complications of interacting influences upon each community 
from within, from every other community, and from the powers 
of external nature, that the designs of either individuals or com- 
munities are never carried beyond a short distance, when they are 
lost in the general current, the result of which lies equally beyond 
the foreknowledge and the control of all. But the student of his- 
tory, with the key of revelation, clearly discerns the traces of a 
general design running through all the grand procedures of human 
history, and at points even visibly linking itself with the actions 
of individual agents. God's providence, as a whole, therefore, 
comprehends and controls the little providences of men. 

9. State the Scriptural argument from the prophecies, prom- 
ises, and threatenings of God. 

In innumerable instances has God in the Scriptures prophesied 
with great particularity the certain occurrence of an event abso- 
lutely, and he has promised or threatened the occurrence of other 
events contingently upon certain conditions. This would be a 
mockery, if God did not use the means to fulfill his word. 

It is not reasonable to object that God simply foresaw the 
event, and so prophesied, promised, or threatened it, because the 
event is frequently promised or threatened contingently, upon a 
condition which does not stand in the relation of a cause to that 
event. God could not foresee one event as contingent upon an- 
other which sustains no causal relation to it. The truth of the 
promise or threatening in such a case can not depend upon the 
natural connection between the two events, but upon God's de- 
termination to cause one to follow the other. 

10. Prove from Scripture that the providence of God extends I 
over the natural ivorld. 

Ps. civ., 14 ; cxxxv., 5-7 ; cxlvii., 8-18 ; cxlviii., 7, 8 ; Job| 
ix., 5, 6 ; xxi., 9-11 ; xxxvii., 6-13 ; Acts xiv., 17. 



PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE. 209 

11. Prove from Scripture that it includes the brute creation. 
Ps. civ., 21-29 ; cxlvii., 9 : Matt. vi. 3 26 ; x. ? 29. 

12. Prove from Scripture that it extends to the general affairs 
of men. 

1 Chron. xvi., 31 ; Ps. xlvii., 7 ; lxvi, 7 ; Prov. xxi., 1 ; Job 
xii., 23 ; Isa. x., 12-15 ; Dan. ii., 21; iv., 25. 

13. Show from Scripture that the circumstances of indi- 
viduals are controlled by God. 

1 Sam. ii., 6 ; Ps. xviii., 30 ; Prov. xvi., 9 ; Isa. xlv., 5; Luke 
i., 53 ; James iv., 13-15. 

14. Prove that events considered by us fortuitous are subject 
to the control of God. 

1st. A fortuitous event is one whose proximate causes, because 
either of their complexity or their subtlety, escape our observa- 
tion. Every such event, however, as the falling of a leaf, is 
linked with the general system of things, both by its antecedents 
and its consequences. 

2d. Scripture affirms the fact. — Ex. xxi., 13 ; Ps. lxxv., 6, 7 ; 
Job v., 6 ; Prov. xvi., 33. 

15. Prove that a general necessarily involves a particular 
providence. 

Every department of existence in the universe is so intimately 
related to all the rest, that every change taking effect in one 
necessarily affects the others. All events, moreover, occur in 
successions of causes and effects, each link in turn being the effect 
of what preceeds and the cause of what follows. In the present 
order of things it would be impossible to secure certain general 
ends, without necessarily determining all those particular events 
upon which those general ends depend ; and thus, as no event is 
isolated, since even the least event springs from and contributes to 
the general system, every event must be presided over to that end. 
The notion of a general providence, a particular one excluded, 
is as absurd as that of a chain without links. 

16. Prove that the providential government of God extends to 
the free acts of men 

14 



210 



PROVIDENCE. 



1st. The free actions of men are potent causes influencing the 
general system of things precisely as all other classes of causes in 
the world, and consequently, on the principle indicated in the 
answer to the preceding question, they also must be subject to 
God, or every form of providence whatever would be impossible 
for him. 

2d. It is affirmed in Scripture. — Ex. xii., 36 ; 1 Sam. xxiv., 
9-15; Ps. xxxiii., 14, 15 ; Prov. xvi., 1; xix., 21; xx., 24; xxi., 
1 ; Jer. x., 23 ; Phil, ii., 13. 

17. Show from Scripture that God's providence is exercised 
over the sinful acts of men. 

2 Sam. xvi., 10 ; xxiv. 1 ; Ps. lxxvi, 10 ; Eom. xi. } 32; Acts 
iv., 27, 28. 

18. What general principles, as to the nature of God's provi- 
dential government, is it important to hear in mind ? 

1st. The fact that Clod does control all the actions, internal 
and external, necessary and free, good and bad, of all his creatures. 
2d. That whatever may be the mode in which God exercises 
this providential control, or the nature of the influence he exerts 
upon any of his creatures, it can not be inconsistent either (1.) 
with his own infinite perfections, or (2.) with that constitution 
and those attributes with which he has himself endowed the crea- 
ture upon whom he acts. His influence, therefore, must always 
be worthy of himself, and in each case congruous to the nature 
of the creature. 

3d. It follows from the ascertained limits of human thought 
that we can never clearly understand the mode in which, in the 
ultimate act, the infinite spirit of God acts upon the finite spirit 
of man. The interaction of God's agency in providence and 
grace with man's dependent agency constitutes that limit of 
thought which is emerging at every step, which we may define, 
but neither avoid nor transcend. 

19. What is the nature of God's agency in the material 
world ? 

All that we know upon this subject may be defined as follows : 
1st. The properties of material elements are inherent in 



DEFINITIONS. 211 

their subjects, and consequently they act efficiently as second 
causes. 

2d. God has so adjusted these elements in their proportions 
and relations that they act and interact according to certain gen- 
eral laws, which he has established as an order of nature. 

3d. In his ordinary providence God does not change or coerce, 
hut rather preserves these properties in their integrity, and this 
order of nature. 

4th. God, however, "both in the original constitution of the ma- 
terial elements, in the adjustment of them in their mutual rela- 
tions, and in his concurrent providential control of them in action, 
certainly determines all results, individual and general, regular 
and exceptional 

20. What is meant by a " material cause," and what by a 
u laiv of nature" ? 

The material world consists simply of a greater or less number 
of elements, each endowed with its own specific property or capacity 
of acting, and of being acted upon by all other elements respectively 
in a certain way. One of these bodies alone produces no effect, and 
therefore is no cause ; but two or more of them brought together 
act upon each other mutually, according to their properties and 
to their relative circumstances. A. material cause, therefore, is 
to be found in the relative properties of two or more bodies, so 
adjusted as to act upon each other, and the effect is the mutual 
change in each which results from this interaction, e. g., we have 
for cause the mutual chemical attraction of the oxygen of the air, 
and the hydrogen and carbon of the wood at a high temperature, 
and for effect we have the smoke and the ashes, or the elements 
of air and wood in new combinations after combustion. 

But in order that such causes should act uniformly, these ma- 
terial elements must be adjusted uniformly in their mutual rela- 
tions. This God has done with infinite wisdom with respect to 
the relation of these elements, " 1st, as to their properties ; 2d, 
as to their quantity : 3d, as to space ; 4th, as to time/'' 

A " law of nature" is nothing more than a general or uniform 
fact ; it is only a general expression for the way in which ma- 
terial elements act in their mutual relations as providentially ad- 
justed. Instead of producing the harmonious results in nature, 



212 PKOVIDENCE. 

which are often superficially attributed to them, " they are them- 
selves the result of nicely balanced and skilfull adjustments." — 
M'Cosh, Divine Gov., Book II., chap. i. 

21. What do the Scriptures teach as to God's providential 
agency in the good acts of men ? 

The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to the free 
grace of God, operating both providentially and spiritually, and 
influencing alike the body and the soul, and the outward relations 
of the individual.— Phil. EL, 13 ; iv., 13 ; 2 Cor. xii., 9, 10; Eph. 
ii., 10 ; Gal. v., 22-25. 

It is to be remembered, however, that while a material cause 
may be analysed into the mutual interaction of two or more 
bodies, a human soul acts spontaneously, i. e., originates action. 
The soul also, in all its voluntary acts, is determined by its own 
prevailing dispositions and desires. 

When all the good actions of men, therefore, are attributed 
to God, it is not meant, 1st, that he causes them, or, 2d, that he 
determines man to cause them, irrespectively of man's free will ; 
but it is meant that God so acts upon man from within spirit- 
ually, and from without by moral influences, as to induce the free 
disposition. He works in us first to will, and then to do his good 
pleasure. 

22. What is taught in the Scriptures concerning his agency 
with respect to the sins of men ? 

There is involved in this question the insoluble mystery, 1st, 
of God's permission of moral evil, and, 2d, of the nature of God's 
action upon the dependent spirits of men. 

Turrettin sets forth the testimony of Scripture upon this sub- 
ject thus : — 

1st. As to the beginning of the sin, (1.) God freely permits it. 
But this permission is neither moral, i. e., while permitting it 
physically, he never approves it ; nor merely negative, i. e., he 
does not simply concur in the result, but he positively determines 
that bad men shall be permitted for wise and holy ends to act 
according to their bad natures. — Acts xiv., 16 ; Ps. lxxxi., 12. 
(2.) He deserts those who sin, either by withdrawing grace abused, 
or by withholding additional grace. This desertion may be either 



DOCTRINE OF CONCURSUS. 213 

a partial, to prove man's heart (2 Chron. xxxii., 31), or b for cor- 
rection, or c penal (Jer. vii., 29 ; Kom. i., 24-26). (3.) God so 
orders providential circumstances that the inherent wickedness of 
men takes the particular course of action he has determined to 
permit (Acts ii., 23 ; iii., 18). (4.). God delivers men to Satan, 
a as a tempter (2 Thess. ii., 9-11), b as a torturer (1 Cor. v., 5). 

2d. As to the progress of the sin, God restrains it as to its 
intensity and its duration, and as to its influence upon others. 
This he effects both by internal influences upon the heart, and by 
the control of external circumstances. — Ps. lxxvi., 10. 

3d. As to the end or result of the sin, God uniformly over- 
rules it and directs it for good. — Gen. 1., 20 ; Job i., 12 ; ii., 
6-10 ; Acts iii., 13 ; iv., 27, 28. 

23. What is the old doctrine of concursus, and the distinction 
betiveen u previous" and " simultaneous" concursus ? 

This was an attempt to construct a philosophical explanation 
of the truth upon this subject taught in Scripture, rather than a 
simple statement of that truth, or a legitimate deduction from it. 
It was a product of the schoolmen, held by the disciples of 
Thomas Aquinas, and the orthodox party among the Komanists 
generally, and by almost all the early Protestant divines. 

Previous concursus is that act of God wherein, by flowing 
into causes and their principles, he excites his creatures to act, 
and determines them to perform one action rather than another. 

Simultaneous concursus is the influence of God upon the 
creature, continued and considered as carried over into their act. 
As he determined them to perform the act, so he concurs with 
them in the production of the act. 

These theologians distinguished between the action viewed 
physically as an entity, and its moral quality. The action was 
from God ; the moral quality, if evil, was from man. As when 
a man strikes an untuned harp, the sound is from him, the dis- 
cord is from the disorder of the instrument. Concerning this 
theory we have to say, that while we fully believe that man lives 
and moves and has his being in God, and that God works in man 
to will and to do of his good pleasure ; that he has eternally fore- 
ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and now providentially con- 



214 PROVIDENCE. 

trols all the actions of all his creatures so that his eternal pur- 
poses are fulfilled ; — yet this theory of concursus, 1st, in the first 
place attempts to explicate the nature of this divine influence, 
which is not supernaturally revealed, and which transcends our 
natural faculties. 2d. In vindicating the dependence of the crea- 
ture, it denies the efficiency of second causes, makes God the only 
real agent in the universe, and logically leads to Pantheism. 3d. 
It fails to make the distinction which the Scriptures do between 
the relation which God sustains to the good actions of men, and 
that which he sustains to their evil actions. 

It is enough for us to know that there is a constant, most 
holy, wise, and powerful influence exerted by the infinite spirit of 
God upon the dependent souls of men ; we can never logically 
analyze it. 

24. How far do the Scriptures teach anything as to the na- 
ture of God's providential government ? 

The mode in which the divine agency is exerted is left entirely 
unexplained, but the fact that God does govern all his creatures 
and all their actions is expressly stated and everywhere assumed, 
and many of the characteristics of that government are set forth. 

It is declared — 

1st. To be universal. — Ps. ciii., 17-19 ; Dan. iv., 34, 35 ; Ps. 
xxii., 28-29. 

2d. Particular.— Matt, x., 29-31. 

3d. It embraces the thoughts and volitions of men and events 
apparently contingent. — Prov. xxi., 1 ; xvi., 9, 33 ; xix., 21 ; 2 
Chron. xvi., 9. 

4th. It is efficacious. — Lam. ii., 17 ; Ps. xxxiii., 11 ; Job 
xxiii., 13. 

5th. It is the execution of his eternal purpose, embracing all 
his works from the beginning in one entire system. — Acts xv., 18; 
Epb. i., 11 ; Ps. civ., 24 ; Isa. xxviii., 29. 

6th. Its chief end is his own glory, and subordinately thereto, 
the highest good of his redeemed church. — Kom. ix., 17 ; xi., 36; 
viii., 28. 

25. Hoiv can the existence of moral and physical evil be re- 
conciled with the doctrine of God's providential government ? 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 215 

The mystery of the origin and permission of moral evil we 
can not solve. 

As to physical evil we answer — 

1st. That it is never provided for as an end in itself, but al- 
ways a means to an overbalancing good. 

2d. That in its existing relations to moral evil as corrective 
and punitive, it is justified alike by reason and conscience as per- 
fectly worthy of a wise, righteous, and merciful God. 

26. Show that the apparently anomalous distribution of hap- 
piness and misery in this world is not inconsistent with the doc- 
trine of providence. 

1st. Every moral agent in this world has more of good and 
less of evil than he deserves. 

2d. Happiness and misery are much more equally distributed 
in this world than appears upon the surface. 

3d. As a general rule, virtue is rewarded and vice punished 
even here. 

4th. The present dispensation is a season of education, pre- 
paration, and trial, and not one of rewards and punishments.— 
See Ps. lxxiii. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

We must preface this inquiry with an attempt to answer cer- 
tain psycological questions concerning the constitution of human 
nature, which are necessary to prepare the way for the clear un- 
derstanding of the Scriptural doctrines as to the relation of man 
to God's moral government, his fall, his estate in sin, and his re- 
generation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. 

1. What is the general principle which it is always necessary 
to bear in mind while treating of the various faculties of the 
human soul ? 

The soul of man is one single indivisible agent, not an organ- 
ized whole consisting of several parts ; and, therefore, what we 
call its several faculties are rather the capacity of the one agent, 
for discharging successively or concurrently the several functions 
involved, and are never to be conceived of as separately existing 
parts or organs. These several functions exercised by the one 
soul are so various and complex, that a minute analysis is abso- 
lutely necessary, in order to lay open to us a definite view of their 
nature. Yet we must carefully remember that a large part of 
the errors into which philosophers have fallen in their interpreta- 
tion of man's moral constitution, has resulted from the abuse of 
this very process of analysis. This is especially true with respect 
to the interpretation of the voluntary acts of the human soul. 
In prosecution of his analysis the philosopher comes to recognize 
separately the differences and the likenesses of these various func- 
tions of the soul, and too frequently forgets that these functions 
themselves are, in fact, never exercised in that isolated manner, but 
concurrently by the one soul, as an indivisible agent, and that thus 
they always qualify one another. Thus, it is not true, in fact, 



FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 217 

that the understanding reasons, and the heart feels, and the con- 
science approves or condemns, and the will decides, as different 
members of the body work together, or as the different persons 
constituting a council deliberate and decide in mutual parts ; but 
it is true that the one indivisible, rational, feeling, moral, self- 
determining soul reasons, feels, approves, or condemns and decides. 
The self-determining power of the will as an abstract faculty 
is absurd as a doctrine, and would be disastrous as an experience, 
but the self-determining power of the human soul as a concrete, 
rational, feeling agent, is a fact of universal consciousness, and 
a fundamental doctrine of moral philosophy and of Christian 
theology. 

2. How may the leading faculties of the human soul be clas- 
sified ? 

1st. The intellectual. This class includes all those faculties 
in different ways concerned in the general function of knowing ; 
as the reason, the imagination, the bodily senses, and the moral 
sense (when considered as a mere source of knowledge to the un- 
derstanding.) 

2d. The emotional. This class includes all those feelings 
which attend, in any manner, the exercise of the other faculties. 

3d. The will. 

It will be observed that the functions of the conscience in- 
volve faculties belonging to both the first and second classes, (see 
below, question 5.) 

It is often asked which of our faculties is the seat of our 
moral nature ? Now while there is a sense in which all moral 
questions concern the relation of the states or acts of the will to 
the law of Grod revealed in the conscience, and therefore in which 
the will and the conscience are preeminently the foundation of 
man's moral nature, it is true, nevertheless, that every one of 
the faculties of the human soul, as above classified, is exer- 
cised in relation to all moral distinctions, e. g., the intellec- 
tual in the perception and judgment ; the emotional in pleas- 
ant feeling or the reverse ; the will, in choosing or refusing, 
and in acting. Every state or act of any one of the facul- 
ties of the human soul, therefore, which involves the judging, 
choosing, refusing, desiring, upon a purely moral question, or the 



218 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

feeling corresponding thereto, is a moral state or act, and all the 
faculties, viewed in their relations to the distinction between good 
and evil, are moral faculties. 

3. What is the Will ? 

The term will is often used to express the mere faculty of 
volition, whereby the soul chooses, or refuses, or determines to 
act, and the exercise of that faculty. It is also used in a wider 
sense, and in this sense I use it here, to include the faculty of vo- 
lition, together with all of the spontaneous states of the soul 
(designated by Sir William Hamilton, " Lectures on Meta- 
physics/' Lect. XI., the faculties of conation, the excitive, striv- 
ing faculties, possessing, as their common characteristic, " a ten- 
dency toward the realization of their end") the dispositions, affec- 
tions, desires, which determine a man in the exercise of his free 
power of volition. It must be remembered, however, that these 
two senses of the word will are essentially distinct. The will, as 
including all the faculties of conation (the dispositions and desires), 
is to be essentially distinguished from the single faculty of soul 
exercised in the resulting volition, i. e., the choosing or the acting 
according to its prevailing desire. 

There is included in the doctrine of the will, 1st, that in the 
exercise of the faculty of volition, or self-decision, the soul truly 
originates action, i. e., acts as an original cause of its own acts, 
therein differing totally from all material causes, which act only 
as they are acted upon. This is the transcendental element of 
the human will, generally marked by the term spontaneity, which 
has rendered the whole subject so obscure. The truth must be 
recognized that we have here reached one of the impassable limits 
of human thought. Our minds are so constituted that we can 
understand only a chain of operations, each link of which is al- 
ternately effect and cause. The action of an absolute cause, that 
is, of one really originating action, is a mystery to our understand- 
ings, though it be daily part of our personal experience. Any 
attempt to analyse this ultimate fact only destroys it, and con- 
fuses the testimony of consciousness. This conclusion, stated in 
different language, is arrived at by different paths by Sir William 
Hamilton. — See Discussions, pp. 575-590 ; M'Cosh, see " Divine 



THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 219 

Government," pp. 273-294 ; and Isaac Taylor, see " World of 
Mind/' pp. 83-93, and others. 

2d. That this executive act of volition is always according to 
the present prevailing desires or affections of the soul, in respect 
to the object of action, in the view which the understanding takes 
of the whole case at the time. A man always chooses as, upon 
the whole, he desires to choose. The soul often decides in oppo- 
sition to many of its most intense desires. Yet it always decides 
in conformity with that desire which is, upon the whole, the 
strongest. If the question be — Whence orginates the soul's ac- 
tion ? the answer must refer to the soul's inherent power of act- 
ing as an original cause. If the question be — Why does the soul 
act thus rather than otherwise ? the answer must refer to the in- 
herent state of the soul itself in relation to the object of choice. 

3d. That these prevalent dispositions and desires, although 
they are temporarily excited to action by the view which the 
understanding transmits of external objects, nevertheless have 
their only efficient cause and reason in the principles, or perma- 
nent nature of the will itself. These affections and desires are 
spontaneous, and are determined in their character by the will 
which exercises them. The understanding can give no further 
account of them. 

4. What is the distinction between a temporaeilt preva- 
lent AFFECTION OT DESIRE, and a PERMANENT PRINCIPLE of the 

Will ? 

The " affection" or " desire" is a temporary spontaneous state 
of the will with respect to a certain choice or volition, for the 
time being, and in the view which the mind takes of all the cir- 
cumstances and reasons of the case. The " principle" or the 
a disposition," on the other hand, is a permanent habit, inherent 
in the will, of exercising " affections" or " desires" of some par- 
ticular kind. 

A man chooses or refuses in every particular case, according to 
his prevalent desire in that case. But a man prevailingly desires, 
and so chooses and refuses im all similar cases, according to his 
permanent habitual principles and disposition. These permanent 
habitual principles or dispositions constitute the man's permanent 
character ; as a moral agent, he is always as they are : by know- 



220 THE OKIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

ing them we know him, and can to a good degree predict his free 
action under given circumstances. These permanent principles 
are of two classes with respect to origin : 1st, innate ; 2d, ac- 
quired by repeated actions of the same kind. This distinction, 
however, makes no difference with respect to character or moral 
responsibility. A man whose spontaneous dispositions are malig- 
nant, is a bad man, whether those dispositions be innate or ac- 
quired, and in either case he is equally responsible. 

5. What is the conscience ? 

Conscience, as a faculty, includes a moral sense, or the power 
of discerning the distinction between right and wrong, which, 
combining with the understanding, or faculty of comparing and 
judging, judges of the right or wrong of our own moral disposi- 
tions and voluntary actions, and of the dispositions and volun- 
tary actions of other free agents. This faculty judges according 
to a divine law of right and wrong, included within itself (it is a 
law to itself, the original law written upon the heart, Kom. ii., 
14), and it is accompanied with vivid emotions, pleasurable in 
view of that which is right, and painful in view of that which is 
wrong, especially when our conscience is engaged in reviewing the 
states, or the actions of our own wills. This faculty in its own 
province is sovereign, and can have no other superior than the 
revealed word of G-od. — See M'Cosh, "Divine Government," Book 
III., chap, i., sec. 4. 

6. What do ive mean ivhen we say that man is a free agent ? 

1st. That, being a spirit, he originates action. Matter acts 
only as it is acted upon. A man acts from the spring of his own 
active power. 

2d. That, although a man may be forced by fear to will and 
to do many things which he would neither will nor do if it were 
not for the fear, yet he never can be made to will what he does 
not himself desire to will, in full view of all the circumstances of 
the case. 

3d. That he is furnished with a reason to distinguish between 
the true and the false, and with a conscience, the organ of an 
innate moral law, to distinguish between right and wrong, in order 



FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 221 

that his desires may be both rational and righteous. And yet his 
desires are not necessarily either rational or righteous, but are 
formed under the light of reason and conscience, either conform- 
able or contrary to them, according to the permanent habitual 
dispositions of the man, i. e., according to his own character. 

7. Wliat are the essential conditions of moral responsibility ? 

To be morally responsible a man must be a free, rational, 
moral agent, (see answer to preceding question.) 1st. He must 
be in present possession of his reason to distinguish truth from 
falsehood. 2d. He must also have in exercise a moral sense to 
distinguish right from wrong. 3d. His will, in its volitions or 
executive acts, must be self-decided, i. e., determined by its own 
spontaneous affections and desires. If any of these are wanting, 
the man is insane, and neither free nor responsible. 

8. Is the conscience indestructible and infallible ? 

The conscience, the organ of God's law in the soul, may vir- 
tually, i. e., as to its effects and phenomena, be both rendered 
latent and perverted for a time, and in this phenomenal sense, 
therefore, it is neither indestructible nor infallible. But if the 
moral sense be regarded simply in itself it is infallible, and if the 
total history of even the worst man is taken into the account, 
conscience is truly indestructible. 

1st. As to its indestructibility. Conscience, like every other 
faculty of the soul, is undeveloped in the infant, and very imper- 
fectly developed in the savage ; and, moreover, after a long habit 
of inattention to its voice and violation of its law, the individual 
sinner is often judicially given up to carnal indifference; his con- 
science for a time lying latent. Yet it is certain that it is never 
destroyed. (1.) From the fact that it is often aroused to the most 
fearful energy in the hearts of long-hardened reprobates in the 
agonies of remorse. (2.) From the fact that this remorse or ac- 
cusing conscience constitutes the essential torment of lost souls 
and devils. This is the worm that never dieth. Otherwise their 
punishment would lose its moral character. 

2d. As to its infallibility. Conscience, in the act of judging 
of moral states or actions, involves the concurrent action of the 
understanding and the moral sense. This understanding is al- 



222 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

ways fallible, especially when it is prejudiced in its action by de- 
praved affections and desires. Thus, in fact, conscience constantly 
delivers false decisions from a misjudgement of the facts and rela- 
tions of the case ; it may be through a selfish, or sensual, or a 
malignant bias. Hence we have virtually a deceiving as well as 
a latent conscience. Notwithstanding this, however, the normal 
sense of the distinction between right and wrong, as an eternal 
law to itself, lies indestructible even in the most depraved breasts, 
as it can not be destroyed, so it can not be changed; when aroused 
to action, and when not deceived as to the true state of the case, 
its language is eternally the same.--See McCosh, " Divine Gov- 
ernment," Book III., Chapter II., Section 6, and Dr. A. Alex- 
ander, " Moral Science," Chapters IV. and V. 

9. What is the essential nature of virtue ? 

" Virtue is a peculiar quality of" certain states of the will, i. e., 
either permanent dispositions or temporary affections of the will, 
and "of certain voluntary actions of a moral agent, which quality 
is perceived by the moral faculty with which eveiy man is endowed, 
and the perception of which is accompanied by an emotion which 
is distinct from all other emotions, and is called moral." — Dr. 
Alexander, Moral Science., Chap. XXVI. 

The essence of virtue is, that it obliges the will. If a thing 
is morally right it ought to be done. The essence of moral evil 
is, that it intrinsically deserves disapprobation, and the agent 
punishment. 

This point is of great importance, because the truth here is 
often perverted by a false philosophy, and because this view of 
moral good is the only one consistent with the Scriptural doc- 
trine of sins, rewards and punishments, and, above all, of Christ's 
atonement, 

The idea of virtue is a simple and ultimate intuition ; at- 
tempted analysis destroys it. Right is right because it is. It is 
its own highest reason. It has its norm in the immutable nature 
of God. 

10. What constitutes a virtuous and what a vicious char- 
acter ? 

Virtue, as denned in the answer to the last question, attaches 



FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 223 

only to the will of man (including all the conative faculties), 1st, to 
its permanent disposition; 2d, to its temporary affections; and, 3d, 
to its volitions. Some of these states and actions of the will are 
not moral, i. e., they are neither approved nor condemned by the 
conscience as virtuous or vicious. But virtue or vice belong only 
to states of the will, and to voluntary acts. A virtuous char- 
acter, therefore, is one in which the permanent dispositions, the 
temporary affections and desires, and the volitions of the will, are 
conformable to the divine law. 

A vicious character, on the other hand, is one in which these 
states and acts of 'the will are not conformable to the divine law. 

The acts of volition are virtuous or vicious as the affections or 
desires by which they are determined are the one or the other. 
The affections and desires are as the permanent dispositions or 
the character. This last is the nature of the will itself, and its 
character is an ultimate unresolvable fact. Whether that cha- 
racter be innate, or acquired by habit, the fact of its moral 
quality as virtuous or vicious remains the same, and the consequent 
moral accountability of the agent for his character is unchanged. 

It must be remembered that the mere possession of a con- 
science which approves the right and condemns the wrong, and 
which is accompanied with more or less lively emotion, painful 
or pleasureable as it condemns or approves, does not make a 
character virtuous, or else the devils and lost souls would be emi- 
nently virtuous. But the virtuous man is he whose heart and 
actions, in biblical language, or whose dispositions, affections, 
and volitions, in philosophical language, are conformed to the 
law of God. 

With this preface we come now to consider directly the 

ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

11. How do our standards answer the question, How did 
God create man ? 

Con. Faith, Chap. IV., sec. 2. Larger Cat., Q. 17. Shorter 
Cat., Q. 10. 

12. Do the Scriptures certainly sanction the distinction we 
make betiveen the material and spiritual elements of man's 
nature ? 



224 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

Certainly. 1st. In their account of man's creation. God 
formed man out of the dust of the ground, and then breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life, and thus he became a living 
soul, Gen. ii., 7. This indicated his special relation to our souls 
as the Father of our spirits, Heb., xii., 9. 2d. In their account 
of the immediate result of the dissolution of the personal union 
of body and soul in death, Eccle. xii., 7. 3d. Both the words 
nvevfia and ipvxrj, spirit and soul, are constantly used in the New 
Testament to signify the rational and immortal part of man, 
Luke i., 47, and viii., 55 ; Matt, x., 28 ; Heb. vi., 19. In two 
passages they are used together by Paul to embrace exhaustively, 
in the popular philosophical language of the day, the whole man. 
" Your whole body, soul and spirit/' 1 Thess. v., 23 ; Heb. iv., 
12. 4th. In their assertion that while the body waits in the 
grave, the spirit, at death, goes immediately to God, 2 Cor. v.. 
1-8, and Phil, i., 23, 24. 

13. In what sense was man created in the image of God ? 
1st. In respect to the spirituality of his nature, man, like 

God, is a rational, moral and free agent. 

2d. In respect to the moral integrity and holiness of his nature, 
Eph. iv., 24 ; Col. iii., 10. 

3d. In respect to the dignity and authority delegated to his 
person, as the head of this department of creation, Gen. i., 28, 
and ii., 19, 20, and the 8th Ps. 

14. Wherein did man's original righteousness consist ? 

In the perfect conformity of all the moral dispositions and 
affections of man's will to the law of God, of which law his con- 
science was the organ. 

As a consequence of this there was no schism in man's nature. 
The will, moving freely in conformity to the lights of reason and 
conscience, held in harmonious subjection all the lower principles 
both of body and soul. In perfect equilibrium a perfect soul 
dwelt in a perfect body. 

15. In what sense is original righteousness said to be natural ? 

It was the moral perfection of man's nature as it came origi- 
nally from the hands of the Creator. It is natural in the sense 
that it belonged to man's nature at the first, and that it is essen- 



CREATED HOLY. 225 

tial to his nature to render it perfect as to quality, but it is not 
natural in the sense of being necessary to constitute him a real 
man, or responsible as a moral agent. Man is as much responsible 
since his fall as ever before. 

16. Prove that man was created holy. 

It belongs to the essence of man's nature that he is a moral 
responsible agent. 

But, 1st. As a moral creature man was created in the image 
of God, Gen. i., 27. 

2d. God pronounced all his works, man included, to be " very 
good," Gen. i., 31. The goodness of a mechanical provision is 
essentially its fitness to attain its end. The " goodness" of a 
moral agent can be nothing other than his conformity of will to 
the moral law. Moral indifFerency in a moral agent is itself of 
the nature of sin. 

3d. This truth is asserted, Eccle. vii., 29. 

4th. In regeneration, man is renewed in the image of God ; 
in creation, man was made in the image of God ; the image, in 
both cases, must be the same, and includes holiness, — Eph. iv., 24. 

17. What is the Pelagian doctrine with regard to the original 
state of man ? 

The Pelagians hold, 1st, that a man can rightly be held re- 
sponsible only for his unbiassed volitions ; and, 2d, consequently 
moral character as antecedent to moral action is an absurdity, 
since only that disposition is moral which has been formed as a habit 
by means of preceding unbiassed action of the free will, i. e., man 
must choose his own character, or he can not be responsible for it. 

They hold, therefore, that man's will at his creation was not 
only free, but, moreover, in a state of moral equilibrium, equally 
disposed to virtue or vice. 

18. What is the Romish doctrine as to the original state of man ? 
They agree that man was created holy ; yet maintain that 

original righteousnesss did not pertain to man's nature as such, 
but was a supernatural grace added to it. They hold that the 
various wayward affections and desires which war against the law 
of conscience are natural to man, and in themselves not of the 
nature of sin, but tending necessarily to becoming inordinate, and 

15 



226 



THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



therefore sinful, whenever the supernatural endowment of original 
righteousness is withdrawn, for it is the office of that righteous- 
ness to preside over and hold them in order. — See Catechismus 
Romanus, Part I., Chap. II., question 18, and Part II., Chap. 
II., question 32, and Part IV., Chap. XII., question 3. 

19. Row may it be shown that a holy character may be 
formed in a creature at his creation, before he can have per- 
formed any holy action ? 

Pelagians hold, 1st. That it is an essential condition of moral 
responsibility, that the will must be left to act unbiassed by 
any preceding dispositions and desires. 2d. That the only dis- 
positions or character which are consistent with free agency are 
those gradually formed as habits in consequence of repeated 
moral action. Therefore, a created moral character, holy or sin- 
ful, they hold to be an absurdity, for if it be created or innate it 
can not be moral. 

To this we answer — ■ 

1st. It is contradicted by what the Scriptures plainly teach 
us concerning Adam as created, (see question 16), concerning in- 
fants as born children of wrath, etc., (see chapter on Original Sin), 
and concerning regeneration by the Holy Ghost, (see chapter on 
Regeneration.) 

2d. It is absurd, because the very essence of virtue is, that it 
obliges the will. Moral indifferency of disposition in presence 
of any moral obligation is an impossibility, because it is itself sin. 

3d. It is true that all character, in order to be moral, must be 
voluntary, i. e., it must be the character of the will itself, as a 
good or a bad will, (or, in Scripture language, a good or a bad 
heart,) and therefore it is free and spontaneous ; but it is not true 
that such a character must be formed by a previous unbiassed 
choice of the will itself. Every man feels that he is morally re- 
sponsible for the moral state of his own heart, no matter how 
that state originated, simply because it is the state of his own 
heart. If a man hates virtue and loves vice he is a bad man, no 
matter how he came to possess such affections. " The essence of 
the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart and acts of the 
will lies not in their cause, but their nature" — Pres. Edwards on 
Will, Part IV., Section 1. 



CREATED HOLY. 227 

4th. It is also set forth by the same great writer as the "uni- 
versal judgment of men, that the goodness or badness of an act 
depends upon the goodness or badness of the disposition or affec- 
tion which prompted it. It is the moral state of the will (or heart, 
see Matt, vii., 17-20 and xh\, 33,) which makes the act of the 
will right or wrong, and not the act which makes the state wrong. 
A man's motives may be right, and yet his choice may be wrong 
through his mistake of its nature, because of ignorance or in- 
sanity ; yet if all the prevalent dispositions and desires of the 
heart in any given case be right, the volition must be morally 
right, if wrong, the volition must be morally wrong ; if indiffer- 
ent, or neither right or wrong, the volition must be morally in- 
different also. Hence appears the absurdity of their position. 
If Adam had been created, as they feign, with a will equally dis- 
posed either to good or evil, his first act could have had no moral 
character whatever. And yet Pelagians assume that Adam's 
first act, which had no moral character itself, determined the 
moral character of the man himself, and of all his acts and des- 
tinies for all future time. This, if true, would have been unjust 
on God's part, since it involves the infliction of the most awful 
punishment upon an act in itself neither good nor bad. As a 
theory it is absurd, since it evolves all morality out of that which 
is morally indifferent. 

5th. This whole theory is built upon certain a priori notions, 
and is contrary to universal experience. If Adam was created with- 
out positive moral character, and if infants are so born, then the 
conditions of free agency in these supposed cases must be different 
from the conditions of free agency in the case of every adult man or 
woman, from whose consciousness alone we can gather the facts 
from which to deduce any certain knowledge on the subject. Every 
man who ever thought or wrote upon this subject, was conscious 
of freedom only under the conditions of an already formed moral 
character. Even if the Pelagian view were true, we never could 
be assured of it, since we never have consciously experienced such 
a condition of indifferency. It is nothing more than an hypothe- 
sis, contrived to solve a difficulty ; a difficulty resulting from the 
limits of our finite powers of thought. — See Sir William Hamil- 
ton's " Discussions," p. 587, etc. 



CHAPTER XV. 

COVENANT OF WORKS, 

1. In what different senses is the term covenant used in 
Scripture ? 

1st. For a natural ordinance, Jer. xxxiii., 20. 

2d. For an unconditional promise. Gen. ix., 11, 12. 

3d. For a conditional promise, Is. i., 19, 20. 

4th. A dispensation or mode of administration, Heb. viii., 6-9. 

For the usage with respect to the Greek term dcaOrjur], usually 
translated in our version testament and covenant. — See Chapter 
XIX., on " Covenant of Grace/' question 1. 

In the theological phrases " covenant of works," and " cove- 
nant of grace/' this term is used in the third sense of a promise 
suspended on conditions. 

2. What are the several elements essential to a covenant ? 

1st. Contracting parties. 2d. Conditions. These conditions 
in a covenant between equals are mutually imposed and mutu- 
ally binding, but in a sovereign constitution, imposed by the 
Creator upon the creature, these " conditions" are better expressed 
as (1.) promises on the part of the Creator suspended upon (2.) 
conditions to be fulfilled by the creature. And (3.) an alterna- 
tive penalty to be inflicted in case the condition fails. 

3. Show that the constitution under which Adam tuas placed 
by God at his creation may be rightly called a covenant. 

The inspired record of God's transactions with Adam presents 
definitely all the essential elements of a covenant as coexisting in 
that constitution. 

1st. The " contracting parties/' (1.) God, the moral Governor, 



ITS PAKTIES. 229 

by necessity of nature and relation demanding perfect conformity 
to moral law. (2.) Adam, the free moral agent, by necessity of 
nature and relation under the inalienable obligation of moral law. 

2d. The " promises," life and favor, Matt, xix., 16, 17 ; Gal. 
iii., 12. 

3d. The "conditions" upon which the promises were sus- 
pended, perfect obedience, in this instance subjected to a special 
test, that of abstaining from the fruit of the " tree of knowledge." 

4th. The " alternative penalty." " In the day thou eatest 
thereof thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii., 16, 17. 

This constitution is called a covenant, Hosea, vi., 7. 

4. How is it defined in our standards ? 

Con. Faith, Chap. IV., Sec. 2 ; Chap. VII., Sec. 1 and 2 ; 
Chap. XIX., Sec. 1 ; L. Cat., Q. 20 ; S. Cat., Q. 12. 

5. Why is it called the Covenant of Works ? 

From the nature of its " condition," perfect obedience, and to 
distinguish it from the covenant of grace, which secures the sal- 
vation of God's people independently of their works. It is also, 
though less frequently, called the covenant of life, because of its 
design, and of the promise which was attached to it. 

6. Who were the parties to this covenant, and how may it 
be proved that Adam therein represented all his natural de- 
scendants ? 

The " parties" were God and Adam, and in him represen- 
tively all his natural posterity. That he did thus represent his 
descendants is evident. 1st. From the parallel which is drawn in 
Scripture between Adam in his relation to his descendants, and 
Christ in his relation to his elect, Kom. v., 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv., 
22, 47. 

2d. From the matter of fact that the very penalty denounced 
upon Adam, in case of his disobedience, has taken effect in each 
individual descendant. — Gen. ii., 17 ; iii., 17, 18. 

3d. From the biblical declaration that sin, death, and all 
penal evil came into the world through Adam. — Kom. v., 12 ; 1 
Cor. xv., 22. See below, Chapter XVI., questions 14r-23, on Im- 
putation of Adam's Sin. 



230 COVENANT OF WOKKS. 

7. What is the meaning of the term probation ? 

A probation is a trial. The word is sometimes used to 
express the time, and sometimes the state, and at others the 
act of trial. The probation of the human race took place once 
for all in the trial of Adam in the garden of Eden. That trial 
resulted in loss, and since then the conditions of the covenant 
being impossible, and its penalty having been incurred, any pro- 
bation is of course impossible. " Men are by nature children of 
wrath/' 

Considering the advantages of Adam's character and circum- 
stances in Paradise, our probation in him appears immeasurably 
more favorable than it would have been if each individual of us 
could have a separate probation in the dawn of moral agency in 
infancy. 

8. How far does the covenant appear to rest upon natural 
and universal principles of justice, and how far upon the special 
and sovereign ordination of God ? 

It appears to be founded on a basis of natural and universal 
justice in respect to the following elements : 1st. The promise of 
divine favor, conditioned upon perfect obedience. 2d. The threat- 
ened penalty of death, conditioned upon disobedience. 3d. The 
appointment of a probationary period, during which man's loyalty 
was tested, upon which test his future character and destiny was 
made to depend. 

It appears, on the other hand, to rest upon the special and 
sovereign, though most wise, righteous, and merciful ordination 
of Grod, in respect, 1st, to the representative element involved, 
whereby Adam stood for all his descendants ; 2d, to the ap- 
pointing of abstinence from the fruit of the tree of knowledge as 
the special test of obedience. 

9. What was the condition of that covenant ? 

Perfect conformity of heart, and perfect obedience in act to 
the whole will of God as far as revealed. The command to ab- 
stain from eating the forbidden fruit was only made a special and 
decisive test of that general obedience. As the matter forbidden 
was morally indifferent in itself, the command was admirably 






ITS CONDITION. 231 

adapted to be a clear and naked test of submission to God's ab- 
solute will as such. 

10. Was there any virtue in the obedience required which, 
could, of itself, have merited the promised reward ? 

It is infinitely absurd to conceive of the creature as ever merit- 
ing any thing from the Creator. Creation itself, and every op- 
portunity for either obedience or enjoyment, is a free gift, and a 
ground of thanksgiving. — 1 Cor. iv., 7. 

The covenant of works, therefore, was a further gracious con- 
stitution, wherein additional benefits were promised to the crea- 
ture on the condition of the performance of duties already due. 
The only right the creature would have acquired in case of obe- 
dience would have sprung from the free promise of God in the 
covenant itself. 

11. What teas the promise of the covenant ? 

The promise was not expressly stated, yet that it was life, 
or confirmation in a holy character, and in the blessedness of 
God's favor, is evidently implied in the veiy language of the 
threatened penalty, as appears clearly from Matt, xix., 16, 17 ; 
Gal. iii., 12. 

12. What was the nature of the death threatened in case of 
disobedience ? 

This word in this connection evidently includes all the penal 
consequences of sin. These are, 1st, death, natural, Eccle. xii., 7; 
2d, death, moral and spiritual, Matt, viii., 22 ; Eph. ii., 1; 1 Tim. 
v., 6 ; Kev. iii., 1 ; 3d, death, eternal, Kev. xx., 6-14. 

The instant the law was violated its penalty began to operate, 
although on account of the intervention of the dispensation of 
grace the full effect of the sentence is suspended during the pre- 
sent life. The Spirit of God was withdrawn the instant man fell, 
and he at once became spiritually dead, physically mortal, and 
under sentence of death eternal. 

13. What is meant by the seal of a covenant, and what was 
the seal of the covenant of works ? 

A seal of a covenant is an outward visible sign, appointed by 



232 COVENANT OF WORKS. 

God as a pledge of his faithfulness, and as an earnest of the bless- 
ings promised in the covenant. 

Thus the rainbow is the seal of the covenant made with Noah, 
Gen. ix., 12, 13. Circumcision was the original seal of the cove- 
nant made with Abraham, (Gen. xvii., 9-11 ; Kom. iv., 11,) in 
the place of which baptism is now instituted, Col. ii., 11, 12; 
Gal. iii., 26, 27. The tree of life was the seal of the covenant of 
works, because it was the outward sign and seal of that life which 
was promised in the covenant, and from which man was ex- 
cluded on account of sin, and to which he is restored through the 
second Adam in the Paradise regained. Compare Gen. ii., 9; iii., 
22, 24, with Kev. ii., 7 ; xxii., 2-14. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE NATURE OF SIN. — THE SIN OF ADAM, AND THE CONSE- 
QUENCES THEREOF TO HIS POSTERITY. 

1. How is sin defined in our standards ? 

Confession of Faith, Chapter VI., Section 6, L. Cat., ques- 
tion 24, S. Cat., question 14. 

Sin is any want of conformity either of the moral state of the 
soul, or of the actions of a man to the law of God. Vitringa's 
definition is, " Forma peccati est disconvenientia, actus, habitus, 
aut status hominis cum divina lege," 1 John iii. 4. 

2. What is the primary signification of the Hebrew and 
Greek words used to express the idea of sin in the original 
Scriptures ? 

The radical meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek words for 
sin is to miss, to fail, not to hit the mark, then to err from a rule 
or law (atan, f A[iaQidv(,) y hence d^agrla and dvofiia, want of confor- 
mity to the standard of the law). 

Thus sin is not represented as a new, positive quality diffused 
in the soul, but as originating in a disordered action of the natu- 
ral principles of the soul, leading thus to positive desires and 
affections contrary to the law of conscience, since that defect 
which consists in the absence of right desires leads immediately 
to the presence of sinful ones. 

3. What are the three senses in which the term sin is used in 
Scripture ? 

1st. As the moral state of the sinner's heart, a power which 
controls, and a corruption which defiles him. — Ps. li., 2-5; Kom. 
vii., 8. 

2d. As an act transgressing or failing to fulfill the law of 
God. — James i., 15. 



234 sin. 

3d. As guilt or just liability to punishment. — Ps. xxxii., 1; 
2 Cor. v., 21 ; Heb. x., 2. 

4. What is meant when it is said that all sin is voluntary ? 

It is meant that all sin has its root in the perverted disposi- 
tions, desires, and affections which constitute the depraved state 
of the will ; this darkens the mind and controls the actions. If 
the will, as to moral states, is conformed to the law of God, then 
the man will be without sin. Disease, physical derangement in 
the essence of soul or body, can not be of the nature of sin. 

Pelagians hold that sin consists solely in actions, and is vol- 
untary in the sense that only volitions transgressing known law 
are sin. 

5. How can it be proved that the depraved moral condition 
of the heart (or will) is as truly sin as the actions which flow 
from it ? 

1st. It is the universal judgment of men, (1), that the dispo- 
sition which determines an act is that which gives the act its 
moral character ; (2), that the heart of a man who habitually per- 
forms sinful actions is itself corrupt. This is what is understood by 
character, and it is this character, and not the mere act, which 
men regard as the principal object of moral approbation or dis- 
approbation. 

2d. This principle is distinctly asserted by our Saviour. — 
Luke vi., 43-45; 

3d. That state of the heart which gives rise to sinful actions is 
expressly called sin. — Eom. vii., 7-17 ; John viii. ; 34. 

6. What are the conditions necessary to constitute any act a 
sin ? 

Only a nioral agent, or one endowed with intelligence, con- 
science, and free will can sin. Any act of such an agent, which 
is not conformed to the law of Grod, as far as that law has been 
revealed to that agent, is a sin. 

Deliberate intention to sin is an aggravating element, the com- 
mon quality of what the Scriptures call " presumptuous sins," 
(Ps. xix., 12, 13,) but it is not essential to constitute any act a sin. 
For it is evident that those spontaneous, undeliberate movements 



NATURE OF SIN. 235 

of lust called " secret sins," which spring from the corruptions of 
the heart, are sinful also. 

Clear knowledge of the sinfulness of an act is also an aggra- 
vating element in any sin, but not essential to constitute an act 
a sin, except in case of involuntary ignorance of some positive 
command of God. Because moral blindnesss, leading to ignor- 
ance of the essential principles of natural conscience, is itself a 
condition of aggravated depravity. 

It is not necessary that the conscious motive to the act should 
be positively sinful, it may be only morally indifferent, because 
the absence of right affections and omissions of duty are sins. 

Ability to fulfill the requirements of the law is not necessary to 
constitute the non-fulfilment sin. — See Chap. XVIII., question 25. 

7. What appears from the history of the Fall to have been 
the precise nature of the first sin of Adam ? 

It appears from the record (Gen. iii., 1-6) that the initial 
motives influencing our first parents, in their first transgression, 
were in themselves considered morally indifferent. These were, 
1st, natural appetite for the attractive fruit. 2d. Natural de- 
sire for knowledge. 3d. The persuasive power of Satan upon 
Eve, including the known influence of a superior mind and will. 
4th. The persuasive power of both Satan and Eve upon Adam. 
Their dreadful sin appears to have been essentially, 1st, unbelief, 
they virtually made God a liar. 2d. Deliberate disobedience, 
the} r set up their will as a law in place of his. 

8. How far ivas God concerned in the occurrence of that sin ? 

The inexplicable mystery of the origin of moral evil is two- 
fold. 

1st. How could sin, the essence of which is want of conformity 
to God's will, find place in the creation and under the providen- 
tial administration of an infinitely wise, holy, and powerful 
God ! This we can not answer. 

2d. How could the first sin originate in the will of a creature 
created with a holy disposition. — See next question. 

This mystery, however, in both its parts concerns first and 
chiefly the apostacy of the Devil and his angels, which was the 
true origin of sin in the universe, and concerning the facts con- 



236 sin. 

ditioning which we are not informed. The apostacy of Adam 
evidently is dependent upon the other. 

Concerning the relation sustained by God to the sin of Adam 
all we know is, 1st, God created Adam holy, with all natural 
powers necessary for accountable agency. 2d. He rightfully with- 
held from him, during his probation, any higher supernatural in- 
fluence necessary to render him infallible. 3d. He neither caused 
nor approved Adam's sin. 4th. He sovereignly decreed to per- 
mit him to sin, thus determining that he should sin as he did. 

9. How is it conceivable that sin should originate in the will 
of a creature created with a positively holy disposition ? 

The difficulty is to reconcile understandingly the fact that sin 
did so originate, 

1st. With the known constitution of the human will. If the 
volitions are as the prevalent affections and desires, and if the 
affections and desires excited by outward occasions are good or 
evil, according to the permanent moral state of the will, how 
could a sinful volition originate in a holy will ? 

2d. With universal experience. As it is impossible that a 
sinful desire or volition should originate in the holy will of God, 
or in the holy will of saints and angels, or that a truly holy affec- 
tion or volition should originate in the depraved wills of fallen 
men without supernatural regeneration (Luke vi., 43-45), how 
could a sinful volition originate in the holy will of Adam ? 

That Adam was created with a holy yet fallible will, and that 
he did fall are facts established by divine testimony. We must 
believe them, although we can not rationally explain them. 
This is for us impossible, 1st, because there remains an inscrut- 
able element in the human will, adopt whichever theory of it we 
may. 

2d. Because all our reasoning must be based upon conscious- 
ness, and no other man ever had in his consciousness the experi- 
ence of Adam. The origin of our sinful volitions is plain enough. 
But we lack some of the data necessary to explain his case. 

In the way of approximation, however, we may observe, 1st, 
it is unsound to reason from the independent will of the infinite 
God to the dependent will of the creature. 

2d. The infallibility of saints and angels is not inherent, but 



ADAM'S si>-. 237 

rlnraeed ■;: ya ::"::; :: Gol. They are nit in a 

ilin, Adam "as — Lis will was fr-?e. but no: co?i- 
/?r?a 

red will it man a nit iripitr b:Iv afec- 
an 1 v liti ms, l : ause the presence of a positiv dy b ly prin- 
ciple is necessary tc institute them holy. Ear. on the other 
1: •-: .'." in :h ' 11 :: Adam many ] rluei- 

morally indifferent, v. .either g: nl : 1 

becoming sinful a" .It :f the cintril itAaaoa a' 

the:: induA nee in way- tirliidden by 
: -a y., admiration and appetite for the unit, and lesire for 
ledge The sin commenced the moment that, under the 
lasion : Satan, these two motives wei 1: upon 

a. a 1 thus all :w -1 :: 1 -: ime - ; reva- 
q the -a: toenail :- i:r God's 

anthority. and fear : his ta: 

4th A lam, although endowed with a holy disposition, was 
assaults of temptation, 
-sailed through the morally indifferent princi- 
superior intelligence and chai 
- whom, in the highest sense, the irigin it ail sin mast be 

10. "■" - 

1st. In the natural relation which Adam sustained to God as 

the subot : his aa:::.l government, his sin must have instantly 
had the effect of (1.) displeasing and alienating God, and (2.) de- 
pravin his wn souL 

2:1 In ta; i:oa;at relatiin whith Adam sustained :: - 1 
the penalty : the covenant of works was incurred, i. e., death 
inclulm. 1 mirtality ■:: b: ay. 2 lOTuytiiu ::s:ul. 3 sen- 
tence >f eternal death. 

11. In what sense did he become totally depraved, and how 

' " - ' " _•' 

Bv the aihrmatiin that tetai lepraviry was the immolate 

result :f Allan's nest sin. it is ait meant that he botme es bad 

le i:al:l be. :r wen as cerrurt as the best A his unregenerate 

ts i at it is meant— 1st. His ar :sta?y nam God was 



238 sin. 

complete. God demands perfect obedience. Adam was now a 
rebel in arms. 

2d. That the favor and communion of God, the sole condition 
of his spiritual life, was withdrawn. 

3d. A schism was introduced into the soul itself. The pain- 
ful reproaches of conscience were excited, and could never be 
allayed without an atonement. This led to fear of God, distrust, 
prevarication, and, by necessary consequence, to innumerable 
other sins. 

4th. Thus the whole nature became depraved. The will being 
at war with the conscience, the understanding became darkened ; 
the conscience, in consequence of constant outrage and neglect, 
became seared ; the appetites of the body inordinate, and its 
members instruments of unrighteousness. 

5th. There remained in man's nature no recuperative princi- 
ple ; he must go on from worse to worse, unless God interpose. 

Thus the soul of man being essentially active, although one 
sin did not establish a confirmed habit, it did alienate God and 
work confusion in the soul, and thus lead to an endless course 
of sin. 

12. What is the Pelagian doctrine as to the effect of Adam's 
sin upon his posterity ? 

Pelagians hold, 1st, with regard to sin, that it is an act of 
voluntary transgression of known law, and nothing else. 2d. 
With regard to free will, " that is of its essence that a man 
should have it in his power as much to cease from sinning as to 
deviate from the path of rectitude ; therefore, a man's natural 
state is not changed (rendered corrupt) by sinning, but he only 
becomes guilty, i. e.., liable to punishment." 

They consequently deny, 1st, that Adam's sin could corrupt 
by natural generation the natures of his descendants. 2d. That 
the guilt (legal responsibility) of his sin is imputed to them. 
3d. That death and the physical evils of this life, common to in- 
fants and adults, good and bad men alike, are penal. They hold 
these evils to be incident naturally to man's present life, and that 
infants being born as innocent and perfect, though as fallible, as 
Adam, fall into sin through the force of example. — Princeton 
Theo. Essays, pp. 102 and 103. 



IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 239 

13. What is the Arminian view on this point ? 

The Arminian system denies, 1st, that the guilt of Adam's sin 
is judicially imputed to his descendants. 2d. That the corruption 
of nature, which they inherit from him by ordinary generation, 
and as natural heirs, is properly of the nature of sin, and deserv- 
ing of the wrath of God, since it is involuntary. It maintains, 
however, that all men inherit from Adam a natural infirmity, 
characterized as a destitution of original righteousness, making it 
certain that every individual uniformly sins as soon as he com- 
mences voluntary agency. — Apol. Conf. Kemonstr., p. 84 ; Lim- 
borch Theol. Christ, iii., 4, 4. 

Death and the physical evils of this life are not properly the 
penal, but merely the natural consequences of Adam's sin. 

14. What is the orthodox doctrine on this subject ? 

As Adam was the federal representative, as well as the natu- 
ral head and root, of all his descendants, the guilt, i. e., legal re- 
sponsibility of his public sin, which closed his probation and 
theirs, is righteously imputed to them, and its penal consequences, 
the wrath of God, divorcement from his Spirit, spiritual, natural, 
and eternal death, is inflicted upon them, in the line, and in part 
through the agency of natural generation. — Conf. Faith, chap. 6, 
sec. 3 ; L. Cat., Q. 25 ; S. Cat., Q. 18. 

15. What is the usage of the Hebrew and Gh~eek words trans- 
lated "to impute" a**, Xoyi^o\iai ? 

The radical sense of these words in both languages is to think, 
to reason ; then to judge or conclude ; then to esteem or regard ; 
then to impute or attribute, in which latter sense they occur in 
Ps. xxxii., 2 ; 2 Sam. xix., 19 ; Eom. iv., 6-24 ; 2 Cor. v., 19 ; 
Gal. iii., 6 ; James ii., 23. 

The English word "impute" means, 1st, to ascribe to persons 
or things qualities which inhere in them ; 2d, to ascribe to per- 
sons responsibilities or rights which attach to them according to 
some recognized rule of right. 

16. In what sense ivas Adam's sin imputed to all his pos- 
terity ? 



240 sin. 

Sin is used in the sense of, 1st, the wrong moral condition or 
character of the will or heart ; 2d, an act transgressing moral 
law ; 3d, guilt, or legal responsibility for that which has trans- 
gressed law. In the first and second senses, sin can be imputed 
only to the sinful agent himself. In the third sense, of legal re- 
sponsibility, the guilt of the sinful act of one man may be im- 
puted to another, when that other is justly responsible for his 
conduct in the case. God never regards Adam's sinful disposi- 
tion or character as ours, nor his act of eating the forbidden fruit 
as our act, as a matter of fact. But the legal responsibility of 
his act God does righteously impute to us, since Adam being our 
legal representative, we are legally responsible for his action in 
that character. 

There is included, therefore, in the Scriptural doctrine of the 
imputation of Adam's sin — 1st. The recognition of our legal one- 
ness with Adam, on the ground of that sovereign though right- 
eous element of the covenant of works which makes us legally 
responsible for his public action. 

2d. The charging or imputation of the guilt of his public sin 
upon us. 

3d. The most righteous treatment of us according to the de- 
merits of that sin. ' 

17. What is the nature of the union of Adam and his pos- 
terity, lohich is the ground, of the imputation of his sin to them ? 

This union with them is two-fold : 1st. Natural, as the root 
of the whole human family. 2d. Federal, as, by that divine con- 
stitution called the covenant of works, he represented and acted 
in behalf of all his descendants. It is the second, or federal union 
which is the legal ground of the imputation of his sin to them. 

On the other hand, the ground in reason and right for the 
constitution of that federal union appears, 1st. In the sovereign 
right of God to order the probation of his creatures as he pleases, 
which right he evidently in this instance exercised most merci- 
fully, in appointing the probation of the human family under the 
most favorable circumstances. 2d. Adam's natural relation to 
his children made him the prop>er person to represent them. 3d. 
The headship of the first Adam is part of that unsearchable plan 
which culminates in the headship of the second Adam. 



IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 241 

18. What evidence on this subject may be derived from the 
history of the fall ? 

In the third chapter of Genesis Adam is presented as a public 
person, the human race, as a whole, being involved in the trans- 
action. This appears — 1st. Because Adam's name is generic as 
well as personal. It signifies (1.) red earth, (2.) man. 

2d. All his posterity are equally involved in the judicial sen- 
tence w T hich was immediately pronounced, e. g., the pain of child- 
bearing, the curse of the ground, the sentence to live by painful 
labor, and physical death. 

3d. All his posterity have equal interest with him in the 
promise of the woman's seed, which was then graciously made. 

19. How may the truth of this doctrine be established from 
Rom. v.. 12-21, and 1 Cor. xv., 21, 22 ? 

In Rom. v., 12-21, the apostle is engaged in illustrating the 
method of justification through Christ by the parallel fact of the 
condemnation of men on account of the sin of Adam. The latter 
fact he proves thus : " The infliction of a penalty proves the 
transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no 
law (v. 13.) All mankind are subject to death or penal evils, 
therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law, v. 13. 
This is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that 
law was given, v. 14. Nor is it the law of nature written upon 
the heart, since multitudes (infants) die who never violated even 
that law, v. 14. Therefore, as neither of these laws embrace all 
the subjects of the penalty, we must conclude that men were sub- 
ject to death on account of Adam ; i. e., it was for the offense of 
one that many die (vs. 12, 15), and Adam is a type of Christ/' — 
Hodge's Com. on Rom. 

1 Cor. xv., 21, 22, asserts the same truth. All die in Adam, 
not only efficiently but meritoriously, because our relation to 
Adam, as legally one with him, is analogous to the relation of 
the elect to Christ. 

20. What other scriptural proof of this doctrine may be ad- 
duced ? 

This doctrine is expressly asserted only in the passages above 
16 



242 sin. 

cited. The principle involved, however, is affirmed in many 
places ; e. g., second commandment, Ex. xx., 5. Case of Achan, 
Josh. vii. ; of Saul's sons, 2 Sam., xxi. ; and of Jerohoam, 1 Kings 
xiv., 9-16, etc., etc. 

21. How may the imputation of Adam's sin he argued from 
the fact that we are born in sin ? 

The being born alienated from God, from which the corrup- 
tion of our nature results, is itself not a sin, but a dreadful pun- 
ishment. But punishment argues guilt, universal punishment 
universal guilt, and the punishment of all men can be referred to 
no other cause than to the universal guilt of all in Adam. 

22. How is this doctrine of imputation involved in the doc- 
trine of justification ? 

The doctrine of the substitution of Christ in the place of his 
elect, of the imputation of then sins to him, and of his righteous- 
ness to them, is the central doctrine of the gospel, involving all 
that is taught us concerning satisfaction to divine justice, justifi- 
cation, justifying faith, etc. — See Chap. XXII. and XXVII. , 
where many clear and copious arguments from the Scriptures are 
presented to establish this principle of imputation, especially under 
the head of atonement, its nature. 

But in Kom v., 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv., 21, 22, the relation of 
men to the guilt of Adam's sin is declared to be identical as to 
principle with that relation which the justified sustain to the 
righteousness of Christ. The two stand or fall together. 

23. What difficulties flow from denying the imputation of 
Adam's sin to his posterity ? 

1st. The perversion of the clear testimony of God's word, as 
above shown. 

2d. The perversion of the great doctrine of the atonement. 

3d. If we had no probation in Adam, it would follow that 
every individual member of the human family has been intro- 
duced into an estate of sin and misery without any probation 
at alL 

4th. All Christians hold that our present condition is in con- 
sequence of Adam's sin. But if the legal responsibility of Adam's 



IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 243 

sin is not imputed, it would follow that all these consequences 
have been arbitrarily inflicted without any legal ground whatso- 
ever. Yet Paul calls these consequences a "condemnation." — 
Rom. v., 16, 18. 

24. How can this doctrine be reconciled ivith the justice of 
God? 

The unquestionable fact is that Adam's sin involved the race 
in ruin. Whatever difficulty exists in the matter lies there. The 
doctrine of imputation vindicates the justice of G-od by maintain- 
ing that all men had a probation under favorable conditions, and 
that their present suffering has been inflicted according to law. 

25. Are men bound to repent of Adam's sin ? 

The imputation of Adam's sin to us did not make his sin our 
act, nor did it convey his moral character, nor the shame or pol- 
lution of his sin to us, but simply the legal responsibility of it. 
We can no more repent of Adam's sin, in any other sense than 
of being sorry for it, than we can feel self-complacent on account 
of the righteousness of Christ graciously imputed to us. 

26. How can this doctrine be reconciled with such passages 
as Ezek. xviii., 20 ? 

The prophet can not mean that no man ever shall bear the 
iniquity of another, because other texts teach the contrary, (see 
above, question 20.) His design is to direct the consciences of 
the people to their own sins, and he asserts merely the general 
purpose of God with regard to his treatment of the personal sins 
of individuals in the ordinary relations of life. 

27. What is the doctrine of mediate imputation ? 

The doctrine we have above presented has been taught in the 
confessions of all the Reformed and Lutheran churches, by all the 
reformers and by all theologians of the Augustinian school in the 
Church of Rome. But Joshua Placseus, a professor of theology 
in the school at Saumur, in France, in order to defend himself 
from the adverse judgment of the Synod of France, A. D. 1645, 
invented the distinction between mediate, or consequent and im- 
mediate or antecedent imputation. Immediate or antecedent 



244 



SIN. 



imputation is the orthodox doctrine above taught, viz., that the 
legal responsibility of Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants 
immediately, and that their inheritance from him of their corrupt 
natures is in consequence of that imputation. Mediate or conse- 
quent imputation designates the theory of Placseus, who held that 
God charges the guilt of Adam's sin upon his posterity only in 
consequence of that inherent depravity which they inherit by na- 
tural generation, i. e., we are associated with Adam in his pun- 
ishment, because we are like him, sinners. 

This theory is evidently a virtual, though indirect denial of 
any imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity whatsoever. If the 
same penalty which was adjudged to him is adjudged to us only 
because we are personally depraved, it is plain that the legal re- 
sponsibility of his sin is not imputed to us, but only our own 
inherent depravity. Besides this theory, moreover, makes the im- 
putation of Adam's sin an effect of its own consequence. The 
truth is, we are abandoned by God, and so become inherently 
depraved as a part of the penalty of Adam's transgression, other- 
wise where were the justice of involving us in such a fate ? And, 
worse than all, this theory of imputation leads by logical neces- 
sity to the perversion of the doctrine of justification. The analogy 
is affirmed by God. If Adam's sin is imputed, in consequence of 
our inherent depravity, we must attain an interest in Christ's 
righteousness in consequence of our sanctifi cation. 

28. What is the theory which assumes that the sin of Adam 
was literally and strictly the sin of the whole race, and what are 
the principal objections to it ? 

This is identical with the realistic theory, so prominent in 
scholastic theology and mediseval philosophy, which assumes that 
universals as genera, species, etc., are objective realities. Accord- 
ing to this view human nature is a substance, or essence, created 
and concentrated in the first instance in the person of Adam, and 
from him transmitted to all his descendants. The same numeri- 
cal substance which now subsists in individual men, it is asserted, 
sinned in Adam. His sin, therefore, was as much and as truly 
ours as it was his. It is imputed to us because it is ours, as it 
was imputed to him because it was his. 

The principal objections to this theory are, 1st, it is an un- 



IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 245 

supported hypothesis. There can be no evidence of any such 
generic human nature, if all known phenomena can be otherwise 
accounted for. But all the facts as to the permanence of species 
and the propagation of peculiarities of nature can be explained as 
well without as with this hypothesis. And if not capable of 
proof by observation it can not be proved from Scripture, because 
it is not the design of the Bible to teach metaphysics. 2d. It is 
rationalistic to make a philosophical assumption of this kind the 
controling principle in interpreting the whole doctrine of the fall 
and redemption of man. 3d. The theoiy that community in a 
propagated nature constitutes the identity of all those to whom 
that nature is communicated, and involves them all in the rela- 
tions, moral and legal, of their common progenitor, leads to 
manifold absurdities and contradictions. There is no reason why 
the application of this principle should be restricted to the single 
case of Adam. The Hebrews were in Abraham, so far as com- 
munity of nature was concerned, as much as mankind were in 
Adam. The common consciousness of mankind testifies that we 
are not involved in the moral character and conduct of each one 
of our progenitors in consequence of our derivation of existence 
from them. The distinction between acts of nature and personal 
acts, by which this conclusion is sought to be avoided, means 
nothing. It besides contradicts the consciousness of men to say 
that we should suffer remorse and self-condemnation for Adam's 
sin. Unless the understanding is confused the conscience can de- 
liver no such verdict. 4th. The principle that Grod can not, on 
the ground of representation, or legal and federal union, regard 
and treat those not personally guilty as guilty, and those not per- 
sonally righteous as righteous, which lies at the foundation of 
this whole theory, is contrary to the repeated and express chela- 
tions of Scripture, and to the facts of providence. The Bible 
distinctly asserts that the sin of Adam, as something out of our- 
selves, is the ground of our condemnation, and that the righteous- 
ness of Christ, as something not subjectively ours, is the ground 
of our justification. But if the principle above stated be true, 
it would necessarily follow, (1.) if God can not regard and treat 
men otherwise than according to their personal character, or sub- 
jective state, then Christ did not bear our sins, nor are we treated 
as righteous on the ground of his righteousness, i. e. } there can 



246 sin. 

be no true atonement ; or (2.) Christ, in virtue of his community 
of nature with us, was personally criminal, in the moral sense of 
the word, and for all the sins committed in that nature ; and we, 
in virtue of our union with him, are personally and subjectively 
righteous. Our participation of Christ's righteousness is declared 
by Scripture to be analogous to our participation of Adam's sin. 
If, therefore, we sinned Adam's sin, we wrought Christ's righte- 
ousness. If we are condemned for Adam's sin, because that sin 
determined and constituted our moral character, then we are jus- 
tified for Christ's righteousness, because it constituted our moral 
character. The believer, hence, has no ground of confidence beyond 
his own personal holiness. — Dr. Hodge, Bib. Kep., April, 1860. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

ORIGINAL SIN. 

1. How is original sin to be defined ? 

See Confession of Faith, Chapter VI., L. Cat., questions 25, 

26, S. Cat., question 18. 

The phrase, original sin, is used sometimes to include the 
judicial imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, as well as the 
hereditary moral corruption, common to all his descendants, 
which is one of the consequences of that imputation. More 
strictly, however, the phrase original sin designates only the 
hereditary moral corruption common to all men from birth. 

In the definition of this doctrine we deny — 

1st. That this corruption is in any sense physical, that it in- 
heres in the essence of the soul, or in any of its natural faculties 
as such. 

2d. That it consists primarily in the mere supremacy of the 
sensual part of our nature. It is a depraved habit or bias of 
will. 

3d. That it consists solely in the absence of holy dispositions, 
because, from the inherent activity of the soul, sin exhibits itself 
from the beginning in the way of a positive proneness to evil. 

On the other hand, we affirm — 

1st. That original sin is purely moral, being the innate 
proneness of the will to evil. 

2d. That having its seat in the will averse to the holy law 
of God, it biasses the understanding, and thus deceives the con- 
science, leads to erroneous moral judgments, to blindness of mind, 
to deficient and perverted sensibility in relation to moral objects, 
to the inordinate action of the sensuous nature, and thus to cor- 
ruption of the entire soul. 

3d. Thus it presents two aspects : (1.) The loss of the original 



248 ORIGINAL SIN. 

righteous habit of will. (2.) The presence of a positively un- 
righteous habit. 

4th. Yet from the fact that this innate depravity does em- 
brace a positive disposition to evil, it does not follow that a posi- 
tive evil quality has been infused into the soul. Because, from 
the essentially active nature of the soul, and from the esential 
nature of virtue, as that which obliges the will, it evidently fol- 
lows that moral indifference is impossible; and so that depravity, 
which President Edwards says " comes from a defective or privi- 
tive cause," instantly assumes a positive form. Not to love God 
is to rebell against him, not to obey virtue is to trample it under 
foot. Self-love soon brings us to fear, then to hate the vindicator 
of righteousness. — Edwards on " Original Sin," Part IV., sec. 2. 

2. Why is this sin called original ? 

Not because it belongs to the original constitution of our 
nature as it came forth from the hand of Grod, but because, 1st, 
it is derived by ordinary generation from Adam, the original root 
of the human race ; and, 2d, it is the inward root or origin of all 
the actual sins that defile our lives. 

3. How may it be proved that the doctrine of original sin 
does not involve the corruption of the substance of the soul ? 

It is the universal judgment of men that there are in the soul, 
besides its essence and its natural faculties, certain habits, innate 
or acquired, which qualify the action of those faculties, and con- 
stitute the character of the man. Those habits, or inherent dispo- 
sitions which determine the affections and desires of the will, gov- 
ern a man's actions, and, when good, are the subjects of moral 
approbation, and, when evil, the subjects of moral disapprobation 
on the part of all men. An innate moral habit of soul, e. g., 
original sin, is no more a physical corruption than any acquired 
habit, intellectual or moral, is a physical change. 

Besides this, the Scriptures distinguish between the sin and 
the agent in a way which proves that the sinful habit is not some- 
thing consubstantial with the sinner, Eom. vii., 17 ; " sin that 
dwelleth in me," Heb. xii., 1, etc. 

4. How can it be shown that original sin does not consist in 



NOT DISEASE. 249 

disease, or merely in the supremacy of the sensuous part of our 
nature ? 

While it is true that many sins have their occasions in the 
inordinate appetites of the body, yet it is evident the original or 
root of sin can not be in them — 

1st. From the very nature of sin it must have its seat in the 
moral state of the voluntary principle. Disease, or any form of 
physical disorder, is not voluntary, and therefore not an element 
of moral responsibility. It is, moreover, the obligation of the 
will to regulate the lower sensuous nature, and sin must originate 
in the failure of those moral affections which would have been 
supreme if they still continued to reign in the will. 

2d. From the fact that the most heinous sins are destitute 
of any sensuous element, e. g., pride, anger, malice, and aver- 
sion from God. 

5. How can it be proved that this innate disposition or habit 
of soul, which leads to sinful action, is itself sin ? 

1st. This innate habit of soul is a state of the will, and it is 
an ultimate principle that all the states as well as acts of the will 
related to the law of conscience are moral, i. e., either virtuous or 
vicious. — See above, Chapter XIV., questions 9 and 10. 

2d. These permanent habits or states of the will constitute 
the moral character of the agent, which all men regard as the 
proper subject of praise or blame. 

3d. This inherent disposition to sinful action is called " sin" 
in Scripture, Kom. vi., 12, 14, 17 ; vii., 5-17. It is called "flesh" 
as opposed to " spiritual," G-al. v., 17, 24 ; also " lust," James i., 
14, 15 ; and " old Adam" and "body of sin," Kom. vi., 6 ; also 
"ignorance/'' "blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of 
God," and a condition of "being past feeling," Eph. iv., 18, 19. 



6. Hoiv can it be shown that original sin does not consist sim- 
ply in the ivant of original righteousness ? 

1st. It follows from the inherent activity of the human soul, 
and from the inherently obliging power of moral right that the 
absence of right dispositions immediately leads to the formation 
of positively sinful dispositions. Not to love God is to hate him, 



250 ORIGINAL SIN. 

not to obey him is to disobey. Disobedience leads to fear, to 
falsehood, and to every form of sin. — See above, question 1. 

2d. As a matter of fact, innate depravity exhibits its positive 
character by giving birth to sins, involving positive viciousnes sin 
the earliest stages of accountable agency as pride, malice, etc. 

3d. The Scriptures assign it a positive character, when they 
apply to it such terms as "flesh," "concupiscence," "old man," 
" law in the members," "body of sin," " body of death," "sin 
taking occasion," " deceived me," and " wrought all manner of 
concupiscence." — Rom. vii. 

7. How may it he shown that it affects the entire man ? 

Original sin has its seat in the will, and primarily consists in 
that proneness to unlawful dispositions and affections which is 
the innate habit of the human soul. But the several faculties 
of the human soul are not separate agents. The one soul acts in 
each function as an indivisible agent, its several faculties or powers 
after their kind mutually qualifying one another. ■ When the 
soul is engaged in understanding an object, or an aspect of any 
object, e. g., mathematics, with which its affections are not con- 
cerned, then its action has no moral element. But when it is en- 
gaged in understanding an object with respect to which its de- 
praved affections are perversely interested, its action must be 
biased. The consequence, therefore, of the sinful bias of the will 
in its controling influence over the exercises of the soul, in all its 
functions, will be — 

1st. The understanding, biased by the perverted affections, 
acting concurrently with the moral sense in forming moral judg- 
ments, will lead to erroneous judgments, to a deceiving conscience, 
and to general " blindness of mind" as to moral subjects. 

2d. The emotions and sensibilities which accompany the judg- 
ments of conscience in approving the good and in condemning the 
wrong, by repeated outrage and neglect, will be rendered less 
lively, and thus lead to a seared conscience, and general moral 
insensibility. 

3d. In a continued course of sinful action the memory will 
become defiled with its stores of corrupt experiences, from which 
the imagination also must draw its materials. 

4th. The body in its turn will be corrupted. (1.) Its natural 



TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 251 

appetites will become inordinate in the absence of proper control. 
(2.) Its active powers will be used as " instruments of unrighte- 
ousness unto sin." 

5th. The Scriptures teach (1.) that the understanding of the 
" natural man" is depraved as well as his affections, 1 Cor. ii., 
14 ; 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; Eph. iv, 18 ; Col. i., 21. (2.) That regener- 
ation involves illumination as well as renewal of the heart, Acts 
xxvi., 18 ; Eph. i., 18 ; v., 8 ; 1 Pet. ii., 9. (3.) That truth ad- 
dressed to the understanding is the great instrument of the Spirit 
in regeneration and sanctification, John xvii., 17; James i., 18. 

8. What is meant by the affirmation that man by nature is 
totally depraved ? 

By this orthodox phrase it is not to be understood, 1st, 
that the depraved man has not a conscience. The virtuousness 
of an agent does not consist in his having a conscience, but in the 
conformity of the dispositions and affections of his will to the law 
of which conscience is the organ. Even the devils and lost souls 
retain their sense of right and wrong, and those vindicatory emo- 
tions with which conscience is armed. 

Or, 2d, that unregenerate men, possessing a natural con- 
science, do not often admire virtuous character and actions in 
others. 

Or, 3d, that they are incapable of disinterested affections and 
actions in their various relations with their fellow-men. 

Or, 4th, that any man is as thoroughly depraved as it is pos- 
sible for him to become, or that each man has a disposition in- 
clined to every form of sin. 

But it is meant, 1st. That virtue consisting in the con- 
formity of the dispositions of the will with the law of Grod, and the 
very soul of virtue consisting in the allegiance of the soul to God, 
every man by nature is totally alienated in his governing dispo- 
sition from Grod, and consequently his every act, whether morally 
indifferent, or conformed to subordinate principles of right, is 
vitiated by the condition of the agent as a rebel. 

2d. That this state of will leads to a schism in the soul, and 
to the moral perversion of all the faculties of soul and body (see 
preceding question.) 

3d. The tendency of this condition is to further corruption in 



252 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



endless progression in every department of our nature, and this 
deterioration would, in every case, be incalculably more rapid than 
it is, if it were not for the supernatural restraints of the Holy 
Ghost. 

4th. There remains no recuperative element in the soul. Man 
can only and for ever become worse without a miraculous recre- 
ation. 

9. What proof of the doctrine of original sin may be derived 
from the history of the Fall ? 

God created man in his own image, and pronounced him as a 
moral agent to be very good. He threatened him with death in 
the very day that he should eat the forbidden fruit, and only in 
the sense of spiritual death was that threat literally fulfilled. 
The spiritual life of man depends upon communion with God ; 
but God drove him at once forth in anger from his presence. 
Consequently the present spiritual state of man is declared to be 
" death," the very penalty threatened. — Eph. ii., 1 ; 1 John iii., 14. 



10. What is the account which the Scriptures give of human 
nature, and how can the existence of an innate hereditary deprav- 
ity be thence inferred ? 

The Scriptures represent all men as totally alienated from 
God, and morally depraved in their understandings, hearts, wills, 
consciences, bodies and actions. — Eom. iii., 10-23 ; viii., 7 ; Job 
xiv., 4 ; xv., 14; Gen. vi., 5; viii., 21 ; Matt, xv., 19 ; Jer. xvii., 
9 ; Is. i., 5, 6. This depravity of man is declared to be, 1st, of 
the act, 2d, of the heart, 3d, from birth and by nature, 4th, of 
all men without exception. — Ps. Ii., 5 ; John iii., 6 ; Eph. ii., 3 ; 
Ps. Iviii., 3. 

11. State the evidence for the truth of this doctrine afforded 
by Eom. v., 12-21. 

Paul here proves that the guilt, legal obligation to suffer the 
penalty, of Adam's sin is imputed to us, by the unquestionable 
fact that the penalty of the law which Adam broke has been in- 
flicted upon all. But that penalty was all penal evil, death phy- 
sical, spiritual, eternal. Original sin, therefore, together with 






ESTABLISHED BY FACT. 253 

natural death, is in this passage assumed as an undeniable fact, 
upon which the apostle constructs his argument for the imputa- 
tion of Adam's sin. 

12. Hoiv is the truth of this doctrine established by the fact 
of the general prevalence of sin ? 

All men, under all circumstances, in every age of the world, 
and under whatever educational influences they may be brought 
up, begin to sin uniformly as soon as they enter upon moral 
agency. A universal effect must have a universal cause. Just 
as we judge that man is by nature an intelligence, because the 
actions of all men involve an element of intelligence, so we as 
certainly judge that man is by nature depraved, because all men 
act sinfully. 

13. If Adam sinned, though free from any corruption of 
nature, how does the fact that his posterity sin prove that their 
nature is corrupt ? 

The fact that Adam sinned proves that a moral agent may be 
at once sinless and fallible, and that such a being, left to himself, 
may sin, but with respect to his posterity the question is, what 
is the universal and uniform cause that every individual always 
certainly begins to sin as soon as he begins to act as a moral 
agent ? The question in the one case is, How could such an one 
sin ? but in the other, Why do all certainly sin from the begin- 



14. By what other objections do Pelagians and others attempt 
to avoid the force of the argument from the universality of sin ? 

1st. Those who maintain that the liberty of indifference is 
essential to responsible agency, and that volitions are not deter- 
mined by the precedent moral state of the mind, attribute all sin- 
ful actions to the fact that the will of man is unconditioned, and 
insist that his acting as he acts is an ultimate fact. 

In answer, we acknowledge that a man always wills as he 
pleases, but the question is, Why does he always certainly please 
to will wrong ? An indifferent cause can not account for a uni- 
form fact. The doctrine of original sin merely assigns the de- 



254 ORIGINAL SIN. 

praved character of the will itself as the uniform cause of the uni- 
form fact. 

2d. Others attempt to explain the facts by the universal influ- 
ence of sinful example. 

We answer : (1.) Children uniformly manifest depraved dis- 
positions at too early a period to admit of that sin being ration- 
ally attributed to the influence of example. (2.) Children mani- 
fest depraved dispositions who have been brought up from birth 
in contact with such influences only as would incline them to 
holiness. 

3d. Others, again, attempt to explain the facts by referring 
to the natural order in the development of our faculties, e. g., first 
the animal, then the intellectual, then the moral : thus the lower, 
by anticipating, subverts the higher. 

For answer, see above, question 4. Besides, while this is an 
imperfect explanation, it is yet a virtual admission of the fact of 
innate hereditary depravity. Such an order of development, 
leading to such uniform consequences, is itself a total corruption 
of nature. 

15. What argument for the doctrine of original sin may be 
derived from the universality of death ? 

The penalty of the law was death, including death spiritual, 
physical, and moral. Physical death is universal ; eternal death, 
temporarily suspended for Christ's sake, is denounced upon all the 
impenitent. As one part of the penalty has taken effect, even 
upon infants, who have never been guilty of actual transgression, 
we .must believe the other part to have taken effect likewise. 
Brutes, who also suffer and die, are not moral agents, nor were they 
ever embraced in a covenant of life, and therefore their case, al- 
though it has its own peculiar difficulties, is not analogous to that 
of man. Geology affirms that brutes suffered and died in suc- 
cessive generations before the creation and apostacy of man. 
This is at present one of the unsolved questions of God's provi- 
dence. — See Hugh Miller's Testimonies of the Eocks. 

16. How may it be 'proved by what the Scriptures say con- 
cerning regeneration ? 



PROVED BY THE NECESSITY FOR REDEMPTION. 255 

The Scriptures declare — 

1st. That regeneration is a radical change of the moral char- 
acter, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the exercise of supernatural 
power. It is called " a new creation ;" the regenerated are called 
" God's workmanship, created unto good works/' etc. — Ezek. 
xxxvi., 26 ; Eph. i., 19 ; ii., 5, 10 ; iv., 24 ; 1 Pet. i., 23 ; James 
L, 18. 

2d. Regeneration is declared to be necessary absolutely and 
universally. — John iii., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 17. 

17. Hoiv may it be proved from what the Scriptures say of 
redemption ? 

The Scriptures assert of redemption — 

1st. As to its nature, that the design and effect of Christ's 
sacrifice is to deliver, by means of an atonement, all his people 
from the power as well as from the guilt of sin. — Eph. v., 25-27; 
Titus ii., 14 ; Heb. ix., 12-14 ; xiii., 12, 

2d. As to its necessity y that it was absolutely necessary for 
all — for infants who never have committed actual sin, as well as 
for adults. — Matt, xix., 14 ; Rev. i., 5 ; v., 9. 

Some have essayed to answer, that Christ only redeemed in- 
fants from the "liability to sin." But redemption being an 
atonement by blood, the "just for the unjust," if infants be not 
sinners they can not be redeemed. A sinless liability to sin is 
only a misfortune, and can admit of no redemption. — See Dr. 
Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum," (New Haven, 1828,) pp. 24, 25 ; 
also Harvey's Review of the same, (Hartford, 1829,) p. 19. 

18. State the evidence afforded by infant baptism. 

Baptism, as circumcision, is an outward rite, signifying the in- 
ward grace of spiritual regeneration and purification. — Mark i., 4; 
John iii., 5 ; Titus iii., 5 ; Deut. x., 16 ; Rom. ii., 28, 29. Both 
of these rites were designed to be applied to infants. The appli- 
cation of the sign would be both senseless and profane if infants 
did not need, and were not capable of the thing signified. 

19. What is the objection that many present to this doctrine, 
drawn from their view of the nature of sin ? 

The Pelagians hold that sin consists alone in acts of the will 



256 ORIGINAL SIN. 

transgressing known law, and that it is essential to free agency 
that a man is always as free to cease from sinning as to continue 
to sin, and consequently that there is no such thing as inherent 
moral depravity, innate or acquired. 

Dr. Nathaniel W. Taylor, of New Haven, the prince of 
American new school theology, taught that sin consists solely in 
acts of the will. That " original sin is man's own act, consisting 
in a free choice of some object rather than God as his chief good." 
He includes in this definition the permanent, governing prefer- 
ence of the will, which determines special and transient acts of 
choice ; which preference is formed by each human being as soon 
as he becomes a moral agent, and is uniformly a preference of 
some lesser good in place of Grod. He maintains also that the 
nature of man, in the condition in which it comes into being, in 
consequence of Adam's fall, is the occasion, not the cause, of all 
men invariably making a wrong moral preference, and conse- 
quently original sin is by nature in the sense that the will enacts 
it freely though uniformly as occasioned by nature, yet that the 
nature itself, or its inherent tendency to occasion sin, is not itself 
sin, or ill-deserving. — See "Concio ad Clerum," New Haven, 1828, 
and Harvey's Keview thereof. 

20. How may their objections be answered ? 

The Pelagian doctrine is disproved by the true theory of moral 
agency, (see below, Chapter XVIII.,); by the universal judgment 
of men that there is such a thing as moral character, properly the 
object of praise or blame, which determines the action, and from 
which any action derives all the moral quality it possesses; by all 
the Scriptures teach of depravity of heart as well as act, from birth 
and by nature ; and by all that they teach also with respect to 
man's inability to change himself, and of the nature and neces- 
sity of the new birth. — See Chapter XVIII., questions 21-25. 

The semi-Pelagian theory of Dr. Taylor may be disproved by 
the facts, 1st. That infants die, are baptized, and must be re- 
deemed before the commencement of moral agency. — See above, 
questions 16-19. 2d. The Scriptures declare this corruption to be 
hereditary and innate. — Ps. li., 5 ; lviii., 3 ; John iii., 6 ; Eph. 
ii-, 3. 3d. The Scriptures call this inherent principle or state of 
the heart sin.~Kom. vi., 12, 17 ; vii., 5, 17 ; Eph. iv., 17, 18 ; 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 257 

John viii., 34. If men are " servants of sin/' it follows that this 
principle, although in the will, lies back of and is superior to the 
mere volitional faculty. 

21. If God is the author of our nature, and our nature is 
sinful, how can we avoid the conclusion that God is the author 
of sin ? 

That conclusion would be unavoidable if, 1st, sin was an 
essential element of our nature, or if, 2d, it inhered in that na- 
ture originally, as it came from God. 

But we know, 1st, that sin originated in the free act of man, 
created holy, yet fallible ; 2d, that entire corruption of nature 
sprang from that sin ; and, 3d, that in consequence of sin God 
has justly withdrawn the conservative influences of his Holy 
Spirit, and left men to the natural and penal consequences of 
their sin. — See Calvin's Instil, Lib. II., Chap. I., sec. 6 and 11. 

22. How can this doctrine be reconciled with the liberty of 
man and his responsibility for his acts ? 

1st. Consciousness affirms that a man is always responsible 
for his free actions, and that his act is always free when he wills 
as, upon the whole, he prefers to will. 2d. Original sin consists 
in corrupt dispositions, and, therefore, in every sin a man acts 
freely, because he acts precisely as he is disposed to act. 3d. 
Consciousness affirms that inability is not inconsistent with re- 
sponsibility. The inherent habit or disposition of the will deter- 
mines his action, but no man, by a mere choice or volition, can 
change his disposition. — See Chap. XVIII., questions 4 and 25. 

23. How is this corruption of nature propagated ? 

Several theories have been held upon this subject. 1st. The 
Manichsean doctrine was, that matter, eternal and self-existent, 
is inherently corrupt and corrupting ; all souls, therefore, being 
severally created pure, become vitiated from connection with their 
bodies. — Mosheim, Book I., Part II., Chap. V. 

2d. Some have supposed that all human souls were created 
cotemporaneously with Adam, having since remained in a state 
of unconsciousness to the moment of their individual births, and 



258 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



that, by some law of connection, they became depraved together 
with him. 

3d. The doctrine designated " ex traduce" supposes that, by 
some law of spiritual generation, the soul of the child is propa- 
gated by, and derives its qualities from the souls of its parents. 
This view is now universally abandoned. Yet it is evident that 
the soul of the child is created after the analogy of the souls of 
its parents, i. e., the child is. like the parent, mentally and moral- 
ly, as well as physically. And surely the soul of the child deter- 
mines the individual idiosyncrasies of the body in the womb, not 
. the body of the soul ; as appears evident from the universally 
recognized truth of physiognomy, etc., etc. 

4th. The sufficient answer is that the moral health of the soul 
depends upon its communion with God. But, because of God's 
displeasure with the race, he creates every infant soul in a state 
judicially excluded from that fellowship, and hence the tendency 
to sin. — Conf. Faith, Chap. VI., sec. 3 ; Gen. v., 3 ; Ps. lvii., 5 ; 
Job xiv., 4 ; xv., 14 ; John iii., 6. 

24. In what sense may sin he the punishment of sin ? 

1st. In the way of natural consequence (1.) in the interior 
working of the soul itself, in the derangement of its powers ; (2.) 
in the entangled relations of the sinner with God and his fellowmen. 

2d. In the way of judicial abandonment. Because of sin God 
withdraws his Holy Spirit, and further sin is the consequence. — 
Kom. i., 24-28. 

25. What distinction do the Romanists make "between mortal 
and venial sins ? 

By mortal sins they mean those that turn away the soul from 
God, and forfeit baptismal grace. By venial sins they mean those 
which only impede the course of the soul to God. 

The objections are, 1st. This distinction is never made in the 
Scriptures. 2d. Except for the sacrifice of Christ, every sin is 
mortal. — James ii., 10 ; Gal. iii., 10. 



26. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the sin against 
the Holy Ghost ? 



SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 259 

See Matt. xii., 31, 32 ; Mark iii., 29, 30 ; Heb. vi., 4-6 ; x., 
26, 27 ; 1 John, v., 16. 

These passages appear to teach that this sin consists in the 
malicious rejection of the blood of Christ, and of the testimony 
of the Holy Ghost against evidence and conviction. It is called 
the sin against the Holy Ghost because he is immediately present 
in the heart of the sinner, and his testimony and influence is 
directly rejected and contemptuously resisted. It is unpardon- 
able, not because its guilt transcends the merit of Christ, or the 
state of the sinner transcends the renewing power of the Holy 
Ghost, but because it consists in the final rejection of these, and 
because at this limit God has sovereignly staid his grace. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE WILL AND OF HUMAN INABILITY. 

1. Is free-agency an inalienable attribute of the human soul, 
or has it been lost by sin ? 

Like conscience, free agency is an essential and indestructible 
element of human nature, and in every case necessary to moral 
accountability. Even devils and lost souls are as free, i. e., vol- 
untary in their sin, as saints in their holiness. — See below, ques- 
tion 4. For a definition of the essential elements of free agency, 
see above, Chap. XIV., question 6. 

2. What are the different senses in which the word will is 
used ? 

For a full answer see above, Chap. XIV., question 3. 

3. When is a man said to be free in willing ? 

When he wills in conformity with his prevailing dispositions 
or desires at the time, all things considered, in the view his un- 
derstanding takes of the case. 

A man, therefore, always is free in willing, and can never will 
otherwise than as free, because the volition, or executive action 
of the will is always determined by the man's subjective state of 
desire or aversion, and therefore is always free. 

4. Do not the Scriptures, however, speak of man's being un- 
der the bondage of corruption, and his liberty as lost ? 

As above shown, a man is always free in every responsible 
volition, as much when he chooses, in violation of the law of God 
and conscience, as in conformity to it. In the case of unfallen 
creatures, and of regenerated men, however, the permanent state 
of the will, the voluntary affections and desires (in Scripture Ian- 



DEFINITION OF MOTIVE. 261 

guage, the heart), are conformed to the light of reason and the 
law of conscience within, and to the law of God, in its objective 
revelation. There are no conflicting principles then within the 
soul, and the law of God, instead of coercing the will by its com- 
mands and threatenings, is spontaneously obeyed. This is " the 
liberty of the sons of God ;" and the law becomes the " royal 
law of liberty" when the law in the heart of the subject perfectly 
corresponds with the law of the moral Governor. 

In the case of fallen men and angels, on the other hand, the 
reason and conscience, and God's law, are opposed by the govern- 
ing dispositions of the will, and the agent, although free, because 
he wills as he chooses, is said to be in bondage to an evil nature, 
and " the servant of sin," because he is impelled by his corrupt 
dispositions to choose that which he sees and feels to be wrong 
and injurious, and because the threatenings of God's law tend to 
coerce his will through fear. — See below, questions 13 and 17. 

5. What are the two senses in which the word motive, as in- 
fluencing the ivill, is used ? 

1st. A motive to act may be something outside the soul itself , 
as the value of money, the wishes of a friend, the wisdom or folly, 
the right or the wrong of any act in itself considered, or the ap- 
petites and impulses of the body. In this sense it is evident that 
the man does not always act according to the motive. What 
may attract one man may repel another, or a man may repel the 
attraction of an outward motive by the superior force of some 
consideration drawn from within the soul itself. So that the 
dictum is true, " The man makes the motive, and not the mo- 
tive the man." 

2d. A motive to act may be the state of the man's own mind, 
as desire or aversion in view of the outward object, or motive in 
the first sense. This internal motive evidently must sway the 
volition, and as clearly it can not in the least interfere with the 
perfect freedom of the man in willing, since the internal motive 
is only the man himself desiring, or the reverse, according to his 
own disposition or character. 

6. May there not he several conflicting desires, or internal 
motives, in the mind at the same time, and in such a case how is 
the will decided ? 



262 FREE AGENCY. 

There are often several conflicting desires, or impelling affec- 
tions in the mind at the same time, in which case the strongest 
desire, or the strongest group of desires, drawing in one way, de- 
termine the volition. That which is strongest proves itself to be 
such only by the result, and not by the intensity of the feeling it 
excites. Some of these internal motives are very vivid, like a 
thirst for vengeance, and others calm, as a sense of duty, yet often 
the calm motive proves itself the strongest, and draws the will 
its own way. This of course must depend upon the character of 
the agent. It is this inward contest of opposite principles which 
constitutes the warfare of the Christian life. It is the same ex- 
perience which occasions a great part of that confusion of con- 
sciousness which prevails among men with respect to the problem 
of the will, and the conditions of free agency. Man often acts 
against motives, but never without motive. And the motive 
which actually determines the choice in a given case may often 
be the least clearly defined in the intellect, and the least vividly 
experienced in the feelings. Especially in sudden surprizes, and 
in cases of trivial concernment, the volition is constantly deter- 
mined by vague impulses, or by force of habit almost automati- 
cally. Yet in every case, if the whole contents of the mind, at 
the time of the volition, be brought up into distinct consciousness, 
it will be found that the man chose, as upon the whole view of 
the case presented by the understanding at the instant he desired 
to choose. 

7. What is the distinction between a transient affection or 
desire, and a permanent principle or disposition of the will ? 
( Will here understood in the wide sense of the term, as including 
the phenomena of desire as ivell as of volition.) 

See above, Chap. XIV., question 4. 

8. If the immediately preceding state of the man s mind cer- 
tainly determines the act of his will, how can that act be truly 
free if certainly determined ? 

This objection rests solely upon the confusion of the two dis- 
tinct ideas of liberty of the will as an abstract faculty, and lib- 
erty of the man who wills. The man is never determined to will 
by any thing without himself. He always himself freely gives, 



CERTAINTY CONSISTENT WITH FREEDOM. 263 

according to his own character, all the weight to the external 
influences which bear upon him that they ever possess. But, 
on the other hand, the mere act of volition, abstractly con- 
sidered, is determined by the present mental, moral, and emo- 
tional state of the man at the moment he acts. His rational 
freedom, indeed, consists, not in the uncertainty of his act, but 
in the very fact that his whole soul, as an indivisible, knowing, 
feeling, moral agent, determines his own action as it pleases. 

9. Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree incon- 
sistent with the liberty of the agent in that act. 

1st. God, Christ, and saints in glory, are all eminently free in 
their holy choices and actions, yet nothing can be more certain 
than that, to all eternity, they shall always will according to 
righteousness. 

2d. Man is a free agent, yet of every infant, from his birth, it 
is absolutely certain that if he lives he will sin. 

3d. God, from eternity, foreknows all the free actions of men 
as certain, and he has foreordained them, or made them to be 
certain. In prophecy he has infallibly foretold many of them as 
certain. And in regeneration his people are made " his work- 
manship created unto good works, which God has before ordained 
that we should walk in them." 

4th. Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's charac- 
ter, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are 
often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent 
from us. This is the foundation of all human faith, and hence 
of all human society. 

10. What is that theory of moral liberty, styled " liberty of 
indifference" " self-determining power of the will" " power of 
contrary choice" " liberty of contingency" etc., held by Armin- 
ians and others ? 

This theory maintains that it is essentially involved in the 
idea of free agency, 1st, that the will of man in every volition 
may decide in opposition, not only to all outward inducements, 
but equally to all the inward judgments, desires, and to the whole 
coexistent inward state of the man himself. 2d. That man is 
conscious in every free volition that he might have willed pre- 



264 FREE AGENCY. 

cisely the opposite, his outward circumstances and his entire 
inward state remaining the same. 3d. That every free volition 
is contingent, i. e., uncertain, until the event, since it is deter- 
mined by nothing but the bare faculty of volition on the part of 
the agent. — Hamilton's Keid, pp. 599 — 624. 

The true theory of moral certainty, on the other hand, is that 
the soul is a unit ; that the will is not self-determined, but that 
man, when he wills, is self-determined ; and that his volition is 
certainly determined by his own internal, rational, moral, emo- 
tional state at the time, viewed as a whole. 

In opposition to the former theory, and in favor of the latter, 
we argue — 1st. That the character of the agent does certainly 
determine the character of his free acts, and that the certainty of 
an act is no,t inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in his act. — 
See below, question 12. 

2d. The Christian doctrines of the divine foreknowledge, fore- 
ordination, providence, and regeneration. For the Scriptural evi- 
dence of these, see their respective chapters. They all show that 
the volitions of men are neither uncertain or indeterminate. 

3d. We agree with the advocates of the opposite theory in 
maintaining that in every free act we are conscious that we had 
power to perform it, or not to perform it, as we chose. " But we 
maintain that we are none the less conscious that this intimate 
conviction that we had power not to perform an act is conditional. 
That is, we are conscious that the act might have been otherwise, 
had other views or feelings been present to our minds, or been al- 
lowed their due weight. A man can not prefer against his prefer- 
ence, or choose against his choice. A man may have one prefer- 
ence at one time, and another at another. He may have various 
conflicting feelings or principles in action at the same time, but 
he can not have coexisting opposite preferences." 

4th. The theory of the " self-determining power of the will" 
regards the will, or the mere faculty of volition, as isolated from 
the other faculties of the soul, as an independent agent within an 
agent. Now, the soul is a unit. Consciousness and Scripture 
alike teach us that man is the free, responsible agent. By this 
dissociation of the volitional faculty from the moral dispositions 
and desires the volitions can have no moral character. By its 
dissociation from the reason the volitions can have no rational 



CONDITIONS OF KESPONSIBILITT. 265 

character. Since they are not determined by the inward state of 
the man himself, they must be fortuitous, and beyond his control. 
He can not be free if his will is independent alike of his head and 
his heart, and he ought not to be held responsible. — See Bib. Rep., 
January, 1857, Art. V. 

11. What are the essential conditions of moral responsi- 
bility ? 

See above, Chapter XIV., question 7. 

12. Why is a man responsible for his outward actions ; why 
for his volitions ; why for his affections and desires ; and prove 
that he is responsible for his affections ? 

" A man is responsible for his outward acts, because they are 
determined by the will ; he is responsible for his volitions, be- 
cause they are determined by his own principles and feelings 
(desires) ; he is responsible for his principles and feelings, because 
of their inherent nature as good or bad, and because they are 
his own and constitute his character/' — Bib. Rep., January, 1857, 
p. 130. 

It is the teaching of Scripture and the universal judgment of 
men, that " a good man out of the good treasures of his heart 
bringeth forth that which is good," and that a " wicked man 
out of the evil treasures of his heart bringeth forth that which is 
evil." The act derives its moral character from the state of the 
heart from which it springs, and a man is responsible for the 
moral state of his heart, whether that state be innate, formed by 
regenerating grace or acquired by himself, because, 1st, of the 
obliging nature of moral right, and the ill desert of sin ; 2d, 
because a man's affections and desires are himself loving or 
refusing that which is right. It is the judgment of all, that a 
profane or malignant man is to be reprobated, no matter how he 
became so. 

13. What is the distinction between liberty and ability ? 

Liberty consists in the power of the agent to will as he pleases, 
in the fact that the volition is determined only by the character 
of the agent willing. Ability consists in the power of the agent 
to change his own subjective state, to make himself prefer 



266 FREE AGENCY. 

what he does not prefer, and to act in a given case in opposi- 
tion to the coexistent desires and preferences of the agent's own 
heart. 

Thus man is as truly free since the fall as before it, because 
he wills as his evil heart pleases. But he has lost all ability to 
obey the law of God, because his evil heart is not subject to that 
law, neither can he change it. 

14. But may not an unregenerate man truly desire to obey 
the law of God ; and, if so, why does not that desire control his 
will ? 

An unregenerate man often does heartily desire to avoid the 
penalty of God's law, and consequently, through fear of the con- 
sequences of his sin, may be said to desire to eradicate the preva- 
lent principle of sin from his heart. He may even, as a matter 
of taste and judgment, desire to obey the law of God in certain 
particulars wherein that law does not directly oppose his domi- 
nant dispositions. But no unregenerate man can love holiness 
for its own sake, and earnestly desire to fulfill the whole law of 
God in the spirit as well as the letter ; for if he did so, the law 
in his case would be fulfilled. 

15. What are the Pelagian and the Arminian theories as to 
the ability of the sinner to obey the commands of God ? 

The Pelagian doctrine is that it is the essence of liberty that 
the sinner is as free to cease from sin as to continue it. That 
man consequently is as able now to obey God's law perfectly as 
Adam was before he fell, and hence that regeneration is the sin- 
ner's act of simply ceasing to do evil, and commencing to do well. 

The Arminian view is that man, by nature and of himself, 
is utterly unable to change his own depraved heart, or to obey 
the law of God, or savingly to receive the gospel, yet that God, 
for Christ's sake, gives to every man sufficient grace, if improved, 
to enable him to do all that he is responsible for doing. With- 
out grace no man has ability to obey, with grace every man has 
ability either to obey or disobey. — Apol. Conf. Remonstr., p. 162., b. 

16. What distinction is intended by the theological terms 
natural and moral ability ? 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY. 267 

By natural ability was intended the possession, on the part of 
every responsible moral agent, whether holy or unholy, of all the 
natural faculties, as reason, conscience, free will, requisite to en- 
able him to obey God's law. If any of these were absent, the agent 
would not be responsible. — Edwards on the Will, Part I., sec. 4. 

By moral ability was intended that inherent moral condition 
of these faculties, that righteous disposition of heart requisite to 
the performance of duty. 

Although these terms have been often used by orthodox writers 
in a sense which to them expressed the truth, yet they have often 
been abused, and are not desirable. It is evidently an abuse of 
the word to say that sinners are naturally able, but morally un- 
able to obey the law ; for that can be no ability which leaves the 
sinner, as the Scriptures declare, utterly unable either to think, 
feel or act aright. Besides the word natural, in the phrase 
" natural ability," is used in an unusual sense, as opposite to 
moral, while in the usual sense of that word it is declared in 
Scripture that man is by nature, i. e., naturally, a child of wrath* 

17. State the common doctrine of the church as to the inability 
of the sinner to obey the law of God, or to accept the gospel, and 
state how far it is natural and how far moral $ 

All men possess those faculties of their nature essential to 
constitute them rational, and moral, and free agents, and there- 
fore all that is necessary to render them responsible for their obe- 
dience to G-od's law. But the moral state of these faculties is 
such, because of the perverted dispositions of their hearts, that 
they are utterly unable either to will or to do what the law 
requires. This inability is "natural" since it is innate and consti- 
tutional. It is " moral" since it does not consist either in disease, 
or in any physical defect in the soul, nor merely in the inordinate 
action of the bodily affections, but in the corrupt character of the 
governing dispositions of the heart. This inability is total, and, 
as far as human strength goes, irremediable.— Confession of Faith, 
Chap. IX., sec. 3. Article X. of Church of England, and Article 
XVIII. of Augsburg Conf. 

18. Prove the fact of this inability from Scripture. 

Jer. xiii.,23; John vi. 44, 65; xv., 5; Eom. ix., 16; 1 Cor. ii., 14, 



268 ABILITY. 

19. How may the fact of this inability be proved from our 
consciousness and experience ? 

Consciousness teaches us that while the dispositions and de- 
sires determine the volitions, no volition can change the character 
of the governing dispositions and desires of our hearts themselves. 
Our experience teaches us that while many men have, for outside 
considerations of self-interest, desired to serve God, and there- 
fore have endeavored to change their inherent evil dispositions, 
they have always entirely failed in such effort. A specific evil 
habit may be abandoned, but the disposition to sin remains, and 
always breaks forth with renewed violence under some other form. 

20. How maiy it be proved from what the Scriptures say 
concerning human depravity, and the necessity of a divine influ- 
ence in order to salvation ? 

The Scriptures declare that by nature all men, without excep- 
tion, are dead in sin. That the affections are depraved. That 
the wicked man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth 
that which is evil. Christ died for us while we were without 
strength. Sinners are the servants of sin. Men are said to be 
subject to Satan, led about by him at his will. 

The change accomplished in regeneration is said to be, not a 
mere change of purpose, but a " new birth/' a " new creation," a 
"begetting anew/' a "giving a new heart," the result is the 
" workmanship of God." Christ gives repentance to Israel. All 
Christian graces are the fruits of the Spirit. The work in us is 
accomplished by the " exceeding greatness of the mighty power of 
God."-— Eph. i., 18-20 ; John iii., 3-8 ; Eom. viii., 2 ; Gal. v., 17. 

21. How can the fact of man's inability be reconciled with his 
responsibility ? 

It is objected that " a man can not be justly responsible for 
doing that which he is unable to do." This maxim is self- 
evidently true when the inability arises either from the absence 
of the natural faculties proper to the agent, or from the want of 
opportunity to use them. Neither an idiot, nor a man devoid of 
the rudiments of a moral sense, nor a man whose volitions were 
not determined by the genuine disposition of his own heart, would 
be responsible. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWEKED. 269 

But, on the other hand, it is just as clearly a matter of uni- 
versal consciousness that when the cause of inability consists in 
the absence of the proper moral dispositions, that inability, in- 
stead of being inconsistent with responsibility, is the very ground 
of righteous condemnation. No matter whence the malignant or 
the profane disposition comes, whether innate or acquired, all 
men judge, 1st, that the stronger they are the less is the agent's 
ability to change them ; yet, 2d, that the stronger they are the 
greater is the agent's ill desert on their account. 

22. How can man's inability be reconciled with the commands, 

promises, and threatenings of God ? 

Gocl righteously deals with the sinner according to the mea- 
sure of his responsibility, and not according to the measure of his 
sinful inability. It would have been a compromise altogether 
unworthy of God to have lowered his demands in proportion to 
man's sin. Besides, under the gospel dispensation, God makes 
use of his commands, promises, and threatenings, as gracious 
means, under the influence of his Spirit, to enlighten the minds, 
quicken the consciences, and to sanctify the hearts of men. 

23. Hoiv can man's inability be shown to be consistent with 
the rational use of means ? 

The efficiency of all means lies in the power of God, and not 
in the ability of man. God has established a connection between 
certain means and the ends desired ; he has commanded us to 
use them, and has promised to bless them ; and human experi- 
ence has proved God's faithfulness to his engagements, and the 
instrumental connection between the means and the end. 

24. What are the legitimate, practical effects of this doctrine ? 

This dreadful fact ought to lead us to feel, 1st, with respect 
to ourselves, humility, and self-despair. 2d. With respect to God, 
sincere gratitude and perfect confidence. And, 3d, to the prac- 
tice of constant circumspection lest we grieve the Holy Spirit, and 
be left to our own helplessness. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

1. What is the Neiv Testament usage of the term diadrjtcT] ? 

This word occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament. 
and is almost uniformly translated covenant when it refers to the 
dealings of God with his ancient church, and testament when it 
refers to his dealings with his church under the gospel dispensa- 
tion. Its fundamental sense is that of disposition, arrangement ; 
in the classics generally that specific form of arrangement or dis- 
position called a testament, which sense, however, it properly 
bears in but one passage in the New Testament, viz., Heb. ix., 
16, 17. Although it is never used to designate that eternal cov- 
enant of grace which the Father made with the Son as the second 
Adam, in behalf of his people, yet it always designates either the 
old or the new dispensation, i. e., mode of administration of that 
changeless covenant, or some special covenant which Christ has 
formed with his people in the way of administering the covenant 
of grace, e. g. y the covenants with Abraham and with David. 

Thus the disposition made by God with the ancient church 
through Moses, the Old contrasted in the New Testament with 
the New diadrjitv (Gal. iv., 24), was really a covenant, both civil 
and religious, formed between Jehovah and the Israelites, yet 
alike in its legal element, " which was added because of trans- 
gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was 
made," and in its symbolical and typical element teaching of 
Christ, it was in a higher view a dispensation, or mode of admin- 
istration of the covenant of grace. So also the present gospel 
disposition introduced by Christ assumes the form of a covenant 
between him and his people, including many gracious promises, 
suspended on conditions, yet it is evidently in its highest aspect 



USAGE OF 6iaQr\ar\. 271 

that mode of administering the changeless covenant of grace, 
which is called the " new and better dispensation/' in contrast 
with the comparatively imperfect " old and first dispensation" of 
that same covenant. — See 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; Heb. viii., 6., 8, 9, 10 ; 
ix., 15 ; Gal. iv., 24. 

The present dispensation of the covenant of grace by our Sa- 
viour, in one respect, evidently bears a near analogy to a will or 
testamentary disposition, since it dispenses blessings which could 
be fully enjoyed only after, and by means of his death. Conse- 
quently Paul uses the word diadrjfcr) in one single passage, to des- 
ignate the present dispensation of the covenant of grace in this 
interesting aspect of it. — Heb. ix., 16, 17. Yet since the various 
dispensations of that eternal covenant are always elsewhere in 
Scripture represented under the form of special administrative 
covenants, and not under the form of testaments, it is to be re- 
gretted that our translators have so frequently rendered this term 
diadTJfCTjj by the specific word testament, instead of the word cove- 
nant, or by the more general word dispensation. — See 1 Cor. iii., 
6, 14 ; Gal. iii., 15 ; Heb. vii, 22 ; xii., 24 ; xiii., 20 

2. What are the three views as to the parties in the covenant 
of grace held by Galvinists ? 

These differences do not in the least involve the truth of any 
doctrine taught in the Scriptures, but concern only the form in 
which that truth may be more or less clearly presented. 

1st. The first view regards the covenant of grace as made by 
God with elect sinners. God promising to save sinners as such 
on the condition of faith, they, when converted, promising faith 
and obedience. Christ in this view is not one of the parties to 
the covenant, but its Mediator in behalf of his elect, and their 
surety, i. e., he guarantees that all the conditions demanded of 
them shall be fulfilled by them through his grace. 

2d. The second view supposes two covenants, the first, called 
the covenant of redemption, formed from eternity between the 
Father and the Son as parties. The Son promising to obey and 
suffer, the Father promising to give him a people and to grant 
them in him all spiritual blessings and eternal life. The second, 
called the covenant of grace, formed by God with the elect as 
parties, Christ being mediator and surety in behalf of his people. 



272 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

3d. As there are two Adams set forth in the Scripture, the 
one representing the entire race in an economy of nature, and the 
other representing the whole body of the elect in an economy of 
grace, it appears more simple to regard as the foundation of all 
God's dealings with mankind of whatever class only the two great 
contrasted covenants of works and of grace. The former made 
by God at the creation of the world with Adam, as the federal 
head and representative of all his posterity. Of the promises, 
conditions, penalty, and issue of that covenant I have spoken 
under a former head, see Chapter XV. The latter ', or covenant 
of grace, formed in the counsels of eternity between the Father 
and the Son as contracting parties, the Son therein contracting 
as the second Adam, representing all his people as their mediator 
and surety, assuming their place and undertaking all their obli- 
gations, under the unsatisfied covenant of works, and undertaking 
to apply to them all the benefits secured by this eternal covenant 
of grace, and to secure the performance upon their part of all 
those duties which are involved therein. Thus in one aspect this 
covenant may be viewed as contracted with the head for the sal- 
vation of the members, and in another as contracted with the 
members in their head and sponsor. For that which is a grace 
from God is a duty upon our part, as St. Augustin prayed, " Da 
quod jubes, et jubes quod vis ;" and hence results this complex 
view of the covenant. 

As embraced under one or other of these two great covenants 
of works or of grace, every man in the world stands in God's 
sight. It is to be remembered, however, that in the several dis- 
pensations, or modes of administration of the eternal covenant of 
grace, Christ has contracted various special covenants with his 
people, as administrative provisions for carrying out the engage- 
ments, and for applying to them the benefits of his covenant with 
the Father. Thus, the covenant of Jehovah (the Second Person, 
see above, Chapter VIII., question 12,) with Noah, the second 
natural head of the human family, Gen. ix., 11, 15. The cove- 
nant with Abraham, the typical believer, bearing the visible sign 
and seal of circumcision, and thus founding the visible church as 
an aggregate of families. This covenant continues to be the char- 
ter of the visible church to this day, the sacraments of baptism 
and the Lord's supper now attached to it, signifying and sealing 



FACT PROVED. 273 

the benefits of the covenant of grace, to wit, eternal life, faith, 
repentance, obedience, etc., on God's part, as matters of promise; 
on ours as matters of duty, i. e., so far as they are to be performed 
by ourselves. Compare G-en. xvii., 9-13, with Gal. iii., 15-17. 
The national covenant with the Jews, then constituting the visi- 
ble church, Ex. xxxiv., 27. The covenant with David, the type 
of Christ as Mediatorial King, 2 Sam. vii., 15, 16 ; 2 Chron. vii., 
18. The universal offers of the gospel during the present dispen- 
sation, also, are presented in the form of a covenant. Salvation 
is offered to all on the condition of faith, but faith is God's gift 
secured for and promised to the elect, and when given exercised 
by them. Every believer, when brought to the knowledge of the 
truth, enters into a covenant with his Lord, which he renews in 
all acts of faith and prayer. But these special covenants all and 
several are provisions for the administration of the eternal cove- 
nant of grace, and are designed solely to convey the benefits 
therein secured to those to whom they belong. 

For the statements of our standards upon this subject, com- 
pare Confession of Faith, Chapter VII., Section 3, with L. Cat., 
question 31. 

3. Prove from Scriptures that there is a covenant of grace 
between the Father and Son providing for the redemption of 
men. 

1st. The Scriptures declare the existence of the promise and 
conditions of such a covenant, and present them in connection.— 
Isa. liii., 10, 11. 

2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm the existence of such a 
covenant. — Isa. xlii., 6 ; Ps. lxxxix., 3. 

3d. Christ makes constant reference to a previous commission 
he had received of his Father.—John x., 18 ; Luke xxii., 29. 

4th. Christ claims a reward which had been conditioned upon 
the fulfillment of that commission. — John xvii., 4. 

5th. Christ constantly asserts that his people and his expected 
glory are given to him as a reward by his Father. — John xvii., 6, 
9, 24 ; Phil, ii., 6-11. 

4. Who ivere the parties to this covenant of grace ; what 



274 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

were its promises or conditions on the part of the Father ; and 
what its conditions on the part of the Son ? 

1st. The contracting parties were the Father representing the 
entire Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty ; and, on the other 
hand, God the Son, as Mediator, representing all his elect people, 
and as administrator of the covenant, standing their surety for their 
performance of all those duties which were involved on their part. 

2d. The conditions upon the part of the Father were, (1.) all 
needful preparation, Heb. x., 5 ; Isa. xlii., 1-7 ; (2.) support 
in his work, Luke xxii., 43 ; (3.) a glorious reward, first in the 
exaltation of his theanthropic person " above every name that is 
named/' Phil, ii., 6-11, and the universal dominion committed to 
him as Mediator, John v., 22 ; Ps. ex., 1 ; and in committing to 
his hand the administration of all the provisions of the covenant 
of grace in behalf of all his people, Matt, xxviii., 18 ; John i., 12 ; 
xvii., 2 ; vii., 39 ; Acts ii., 33 ; and, secondly, in the salvation 
of all those for whom he acted, including the provisions of regene- 
ration, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glory, Titus 
i., 2 ; Jer. xxxi., 33 ; xxxii., 40 ; Isa. xxxv., 10 ; liii., 10, 11. — 
Dicks' Theo. Lee, Vol. L, pp. 506-509. 

3d. The conditions upon the part of the Son were, (1.) that 
he should become incarnate, made of a woman, made under the 
law, Gal. iv., 4, 5 ; (2.) that he should assume and fully dis- 
charge, in behalf of his elect, all violated conditions and incurred 
liabilities of the covenant of works, Matt, v., 17, 18, which he 
was to accomplish, first, by rendering to the precept of the law a 
perfect obedience, Ps. xl., 8 ; Isa. xlii., 21 ; John ix., 4, 5 ; viii., 
29 ; Matt, xix., 17 ; and, secondly, in suffering the full penalty 
incurred by the sins of his people. — Isa. liii. ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal. 
iii., 13 ; Eph. v., 2. 

5. In what sense is Christ said to be the mediator of the cove- 
nant of grace ? 

Christ is mediator of the eternal covenant of grace because, 
1st. As the one mediator between God and man, he contracted 
it. 2d. As mediator, he fulfills all its conditions in behalf of his 
people. 3d. As mediator, he administers it and dispenses all its 
blessings. 4th. In all this, Christ was not a mere mediatorial 
internuntius, as Moses is called (Gal. iii., 19), but he was medi- 



MEDIATOR OF THE COVENANT. 275 

ator (1.) plenipotentiary (Matt, xxviii., 18), and (2.) as high 
priest who actually effects reconciliation by sacrifice (Kom. iii., 25). 
5th. The phrase f-iealr-qg dcaOrjfCTjg, mediator of the covenant, is ap- 
plied to Christ three times in the New Testament (Heb. viii., 
6 ; ix., 15 ; xii., 24) ; bnt as in each case the term for covenant 
is qualified by either the adjective " new" or " better/' it evi- 
dently here is used to designate not the covenant of grace prop- 
erly, but that new dispensation of that eternal covenant which 
Christ introduced in person in contrast to the less perfect admin- 
istration of it which was instrument ally introduced by Moses. 
In the general administration of the covenant of grace, Christ has 
acted as sacerdotal mediator from the foundation of the world 
(Eev. xiii., 8). On the other hand, the first or " old dispensa- 
tion/' or special mode of administering that covenant visibly 
among men, was instrument-ally, and as to visible form, " or- 
dained by angels in the hand of a mediator/' i. e., Moses (Gal. 
iii., 19). It is precisely in contradistinction to this relation which 
Moses sustained to the outward revelation of those symbolical 
and typical institutions, through which the covenant of grace was 
then administered, that the superior excellence of the " new" and 
"better" dispensation is declared to consist in this, that now 
Christ the " Son in his own house" visibly discloses himself as 
the true mediator in the spiritual and personal administration of 
his covenant. Hence he who from the beginning was the u one 
mediator between G-od and man" (1 Tim., ii., 5) now is revealed 
as in way of eminence, the mediator and surety of that eternal 
covenant under the " new" and " better" dispensation of it, since 
now he is rendered visible in the fullness of his spiritual graces, as 
the immediate administrator thereof, whereas under the " first" 
and " old" dispensation he was hidden. — -See Sampson's Com. on 
Hebrews. 

6. In ivJiat sense is Christ said to be surety of the covenant 
of grace ? 

In the only instance in which the term surety is applied to 
Christ in the New Testament (Heb. vii., 22), " surety of a better 
testament," the word translated testament evidently is designed 
to designate the new dispensation of the covenant of grace, as 
contrasted with the old. Paul is contrasting the priesthood of 



276 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

Christ with the Levitical. He is priest or surety after a higher 
order, under a clearer revelation, and a more real and direct ad- 
ministration of grace, than were the typical priests descended 
from Aaron. Christ is our surety at once as priest and as king. 
As priest because, as such, he assumes and discharges all our ob- 
ligations under the broken covenant of works. As king, (the 
two in him are inseparable, he is always a royal priest,) because, 
as such, he administers the blessings of his covenant to his peo- 
ple, and to this end entering into covenants with them, offering 
them grace upon the condition of faith and obedience, and then, 
as their surety, giving them the graces of faith and obedience, 
that they may fulfill their part. 

7. What general method has characterized Chrisfs adminis- 
tration of his covenant under all dispensations ? 

The purchased benefits of the covenant are placed in Christ's 
hand, to be bestowed upon his people as free and sovereign gifts. 
From Christ to us they are all gifts, but from us to Christ many 
of them are duties. Thus, in the administration of the covenant 
of grace, many of these purchased blessings, which are to take 
effect in our acts, e. </., faith, etc., he demands of us as duties, 
and promises other benefits as a reward conditioned on our obe- 
dience. Thus, so to speak, he rewards grace with grace, and con- 
ditions grace upon grace. Promising faith to his elect, then 
working faith in them, then rewarding them for its exercise with 
peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, 
etc., etc. 

8. What is the Arminian view of the covenant of grace ? 
They hold, 1st, as to the parties of the covenant of grace, that 

God offers it to all men, and that he actually contracts it with all 
believers. 2d. As to its promises, that they include all the tem- 
poral and eternal benefits of Christ's redemption. 3d. As to its 
conditions, that God now graciously accepts faith and evangelical 
obedience for righteousness, in the place of that perfect legal obe- 
dience he demanded of man under the covenant of works, the 
meritorious work of Christ making it consistent with the princi- 
ples of divine justice for him so to do. They regard all men 
as rendered by sufficient grace capable of fulfilling such conditions, 
if they will. 



ONE FROM THE BEGINNING. 277 

9. In what sense can faith be called a condition of salvation ? 

Faith is a condition sine qua non of salvation, i. e., no adult 
man can be saved if lie does not believe, and every man that does 
believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and the first 
part or stage of salvation. Viewed on God's side it is the be- 
ginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on our side 
it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, therefore, as our 
act, the instrument of our union with Christ, and thus the neces- 
sary antecedent, though never the meritorious cause of the graci- 
ous salvation which follows. 

10. What are the promises which Christy as the administra- 
tor of the covenant of grace, makes to all those who believe ? 

The promise to Abraham to be a " God to him and to his 
seed after him" (Gen. xvii., 7) embraces all others. All things 
alike, physical and moral, in providence and grace, for time and 
eternity, are to work together for our good. " All are yours, and 
ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." — 1 Cor. iii., 22, 23. 

11. Prove that Christ was mediator of men before as well as 
after his advent in the flesh. 

1st. As mediator he is both priest and sacrifice, and as such 
it is affirmed that he is the " Lamb slain from the foundation of 
the earth," and a " propitiation for the sins that are past." — Kev. 
xiii., 8 ; Kom. iii., 25 ; Heb. ix., 15. 

2d. He was promised to Adam, Gen. iii., 15. 

3d. In the 3d chapter of Gal. Paul proves that the promise 
made to Abraham, Gen. xvii., 7, xxii., 18, is the very same gos- 
pel that the apostle himself preached. Thus Abraham became 
the father of those that believe. 

4th. Acts x., 43, " To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive re- 
mission of sin." — See 53d chap, of Is., also chap, xlii., 6. 

5th. The ceremonial institutions of Moses were symbolical 
and typical of Christ's work ; as symbols they signified Christ's 
merit and grace to the ancient worshiper for his present salvation 
while as types they prophesied the substance which was to come — 
Heb. x., 1-10 ; Col. ii., 17. 



278 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

6th. Christ was the Jehovah of the old dispensation. — See 
above, Chap. YIIL, question 12. 

12. Prove that faith was the condition of salvation before the 
advent of Christ, in the same sense that it is now ? 

1st. This is affirmed in the Old Testament, Hah. ii., 4 ; Ps. 
ii., 12. 

2d. The New Testament writers illustrate their doctrine of 
justification by faith by the examples of Old Testament be- 
lievers. — See Rom. iv., and Heb. xi. 

13. Show that Christ, as administrator of the covenant of 
grace, gave to the members of the Old Testament church pre- 
cisely the same promises that he does to us. 

1st. The promises given to Christ's ancient people clearly em- 
brace all spiritual and eternal blessings, e. g., the promise given 
to Abraham, Gen. xvii., 7, as expounded by Christ, Matt, xxii., 
32, and the promise given to Abraham, Gen. xxii., 18 ; xii. 3 ; 
as expounded by Paul, Gal. iii., 16 ; see also Is. xliii., 25 ; Ezek. 
xxxvi., 27 ; Dan. xii., 2, 3. 

2d. This is plain also from the expectation and prayers of 
God's people, 51st Ps. and 16th Ps ; Job xix v 24r-27 ; Ps. lxxiii., 
24-26. 

14. How was the covenant of grace administered from Adam 
to Abraham ? 

1st. By promise, Gen. iii., 15. 

2d By means of typical sacrifices instituted in the family of 
Adam. 

3d. By means of immediate revelations and appearances of the 
Jehovah, or divine mediator to his people. Thus " the Lord" is 
represented throughout the first eleven chapters of Genesis as 
"speaking" to men. That these promises and sacrifices were 
then understood in their true spiritual intent is proved by Paul, 
Heb. xi., 4-7. And that this administration of the covenant of 
grace reached many of the people of the earth, during this era, is 
proved by the history of Job in Arabia, of Abraham in Mesopo- 
tamia, and of Melchisedec in Canaan. 



MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 279 

15. Hoiv was it administered from Abraham to Moses ? 

1st. The promise given during the preceding period, (Gen. iii., 
15,) is now renewed in the form of a more definite covenant, re- 
vealing the coming Saviour as in the line of Abraham's posterity 
through Isaac, and the interest of the whole world in his salva- 
tion is more fully set forth, Gen. xvii., 7 ; xxii., 18. This was 
the gospel preached beforehand, Gal. iii., 8. 

2d. Sacrifices were continued as before. 

3d. The church, or company of believers, which existed from 
the beginning in its individual members, was now formed into a 
general body as an aggregate of families, by the institution of 
circumcision, as a visible symbol of the benefits of the covenant 
of grace, and as a badge of church membership. 

16. What was the true nature of the covenant made by God 
with the Israelites through Moses ? 

It may be regarded in three aspects — 

1st. As a national and political covenant, whereby, in a po- 
litical sense, they became his people, under his theocratical gov- 
ernment, and in this peculiar sense he became their God. The 
church and the state were identical. In one aspect the whole 
system had reference to this relation. 

2d. It was in one aspect a legal covenant, because the moral 
law, obedience to which was the condition of the covenant of 
works, was prominently set forth, and conformity to this law was 
made the condition of God's favor, and of all national blessings. 
Even the ceremonial system in its merely literal, and apart from 
its symbolical aspect, was also a rule of works, for cursed was he 
that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.— Deut. 
xxvii., 26. 

3d. But in the symbolical and typical significance of all the 
Mosaic institutions, they were a clearer and fuller revelation of. 
the provisions of the covenant of grace than had ever before 
been made. This Paul abundantly proves throughout the 
Epistle to the Hebrews.— -Hodge on Eomans. 

17. What are the characteristic differences between the dis- 
pensation of the covenant of grace under the law of Moses and 
after the advent of Christ ? 



280 THE COVENANT OF GEACE. 

These differences, of course, relate only to the mode of admin- 
istration, and not to the matter of the truth revealed, nor of the 
grace administered. 1st. The truth was then signified by sym- 
bols, which, at the same time, were types of the real atonement 
for sin afterwards to be made. Now the truth is revealed in the 
plain gospel history. 2d. That revelation was less full as well 
as less clear. 3d. It was so encumbered with ceremonies as to be 
comparatively a carnal dispensation. The present dispensation is 
spiritual. 4th. It was confined to one people. The present dis- 
pensation, disembarrassed from all national organizations, em- 
braces the whole earth. 5th. The former method of administra- 
tion was evidently preparatory to the present, which is final. 



CHAPTER XX. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

1. How can it be proved that the promised Messiah of the 
Jewish Scriptures has already come, and that Jesus Christ is 
that person ? 

We prove that lie must have already come by showing that 
the conditions of time and circumstances, which the prophets 
declare should mark his advent, are no longer possible. We 
prove, secondly, that Jesus of Nazareth was that person by show- 
ing that every one of those conditions was fulfilled in him. 

2. Prove that Gen. xlix., 10, refers to the Messiah, and shoiv 
how it proves that the Messiah must have already come. 

The original word, translated shiloh, signifies peace, and is 
applied to the Messiah. (Compare Micah v., 2, 5, with Matt, ii., 
6.) Besides, it is only to the Messiah that the gathering of the 
nations is to be, see Isa. lv., 5 ; lx., 3 ; Hag. ii., 7. The Jews, 
moreover, have always understood this passage as referring to the 
Messiah. 

Up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ the sceptre and 
the lawgiver did remain with Judah ; but seventy years after his 
birth, at the destruction of Jerusalem, they finally departed. If 
the advent of the Messiah had not occurred previously this pro- 
phecy is false. 

3. Do the same ivith reference to the prophecy of Dan. ix.. 
24-27. 

This prophecy refers expressly to the Messiah, and to his 
peculiar and exclusive work. That the seventy weeks here men- 
tioned are to be interpreted weeks of years is certain, 1st, from 



282 THE PERSON OF CHEIST. 

the fact that it was the Jewish custom so to divide time ; 2d, 
from the fact that this was precisely the common usage of the 
prophetical books, see Ezek. iv., 6 ; Kev. xii. 6 ; xiii. 3 5 ; 3d, 
from the fact that the literal application of the language as seventy 
common weeks is impracticable. 

The prophecy is, that seven weeks of years, or forty-nine years 
from the end of the captivity, the city would be rebuilt. That 
sixty-two weeks of years, or four hundred and thirty-four years 
after the rebuilding of the city, the Messiah should appear, and 
that during the period of one week of years he should confirm the 
covenant, and in the midst of the week be cut off. 

There is some doubt as to the precise date from which the 
calculation ought to commence. The greatest difference, however, 
is only ten years, and the most probable date causes the pro- 
phecy to coincide precisely with the history of Jesus Christ. 

4. What prophecies, relating to the time, place, and circum- 
stances of the birth of the Messiah, have been fulfilled in Jesus of 
Nazareth ? 

As to time, it was predicted that he should come before the 
sceptre departed from Judah, (G-en. xlix., 10,) at the end of four 
hundred and ninety years after the going forth of the command to 
rebuild Jerusalem, and while the second temple was still stand- 
ing. — Hag. ii., 9 ; Mai. hi., 1. 

As to place and circumstances, he was to be born in Beth- 
lehem, (Micah v., 2,) of the tribe of Judah, of the family of Da- 
vid, Jer. xxiii., 5-6. He was to be born of a virgin, Isa. vii., 14; 
and to be preceded by a forerunner, Mai. iii., 1. All these met 
in Jesus Christ, and can never again be fulfilled in another, since 
the genealogies of tribes and families have been lost. 

5. What remarkable characteristics of the Messiah, as de- 
scribed in the Old Testament, were verified in our Saviour ? 

He was to be a king and conqueror of universal empire, Ps. ii., 
6, and Ps. xlv. ; Isa. ix , 6, 7 ; and yet despised and rejected, a 
man of sorrow, a prisoner, pouring forth his soul unto death, Isa. 
liii. He was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and under his 
administration the moral condition of the whole earth was to be 
changed, Isa. xlii., 6 ; xlix., 6 ; lx., 1-7. His death was to be 



JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH. 283 

vicarious, Isa. liii., 5, 9, 12. He was to enter the city riding upon 
an ass, Zech. ix., 9. He was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver, 
and his price purchase a potter's field, Zech. xi., 12, 13. His 
garments were to be parted by lot, Ps. xxii., 18. They were to 
give him vinegar to drink, Ps. lxix., 21. The very words he was 
to utter on the cross are predicted, Ps. xxii., 1 ; also that he 
should be pierced, Zech. xii., 10 ; and make his grave with the 
wicked and with the rich, Isa. liii., 9. — See Dr. Alexander's Evi- 
dences of Christianity. 

6. What peculiar work was the Messiah to accomplish, which 
has been performed by Christ ? 

All his mediatorial offices were predicted in substance. He 
was to do the work of a prophet, (Is. xlii., 6 ; lx., 3,) and that 
of a priest, (Is. liii., 10,) to make reconciliation for sin, (Dan. ix., 
24.) As king, he was to administer the several dispensations of 
his kingdom, closing one and introducing another, sealing up the 
vision and prophecy, causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease 
(Dan. ix., 24), and setting up a kingdom that should never cease 
(Dan. ii., 44). 

7. What are the three points involved in the true doctrine of 
the person of Christ as the incarnate Son of God ? 

1st. The absolute divinity of Christ as the eternal Son of God, 
the second person of the Trinity. 2d. The perfect manhood of 
Christ ; the presence in his divine person of a true body and a 
reasonable soul, which, beginning to exist only in union with the 
Godhead, never had a distinct personal subsistence. 3d. The 
person, therefore, is the eternal Son of God, into which person- 
ality has been assumed, and in which is ever more sustained a 
perfect human nature ; so that he ever more continues one per- 
son, constituted of two entire and distinct natures. 

8. How may it be proved that Christ is really a man ? 

He is called man, 1 Tim., ii., 5. His most common title is 
Son of Man, Matt, xiii., 37, also seed of the woman, Gen. iii. ; 
15 ; the seed of Abraham, Acts iii., 25 ; Son of David, and fruit 
of his loins, Luke i., 32 ; made of a woman, Gal. iv., 4. He 



284 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

had a body, ate, drank, slept, and increased in stature, Luke ii., 
52 ; and through a life of thirty-three years was recognized by all 
men as a true man. He died in agony on the cross, was buried, 
rose, and proved his identity by physical signs, Luke xxiv., 
36-44. He had a reasonable soul, for he increased in wisdom. 
He exercised the common feelings of our nature, he groaned in 
spirit and was troubled, he wept, John xi., 33, 35. He loved 
Martha and Mary, and the disciple that Jesus loved leaned upon 
his bosom, John xiii., 23. 

The absolute divinity of Christ has been proved above, Chap. 
VIII. 

9. How may it be proved that both these natures constituted 
but one person ? 

In many passages both natures are referred to, when it is evi- 
dent that only one person was intended (Phil, ii., 6-11). In 
many passages both natures are set forth as united. It is never 
affirmed that divinity abstractly, or a divine power, was united 
to, or manifested in a human nature, but of the divine nature 
concretely, that a divine being was united to a human being. — 
Heb. ii., 11-14 ; 1 Tim., iii., 16 ; Gal. iv., 4 ; Eom. viii., 3, and 
i., 3, 4 ; ix., 5 ; John i., 14 ; 1 John, iv., 3. 

The union of two natures in one person is also clearly taught 
by those passages in which the attributes of one nature are predi- 
cated of the person, while that person is designated by a title 
derived from the other nature. Thus human attributes and 
actions are predicated of Christ in certain passages, while the 
person of whom these attributes or actions are predicated is desig- 
nated by a divine title. — Acts xx., 28 ; Kom. viii., 32 ; 1 Cor., 
ii., 8 ; Matt, i., 23 ; Luke i., 31, 32 ; Col. i., 13, 14. 

On the other hand, in other passages, divine attributes and 
actions are predicated of Christ, while his person, of whom those 
attributes are predicated, is designated by a human title. — John 
iii., 13 ; vi., 62 ; Rom. ix., 5 ; Rev. v., 12. 

10. What is the general principle upon which those passages 
are to be explained which designate the person of Christ from 
one nature, and predicate attributes to it belonging to the other ? 

The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one per- 



HIS HUMAN NATURE — HOW AFFECTED. 285 

son. He may therefore indifferently be designated by divine or 
human titles, and both divine and human attributes may be truly 
predicated of him. He is still God when he dies, and still man 
when he raises his people from their graves. 

Mediatorial actions pertain to both natures. It must be re- 
membered, however, that while the person is one, the natures are 
distinct as such. What belongs to either nature is attributed to 
the one person to which both belong, but what is peculiar to one 
nature is never attributed to the other. God, i. e., the divine 
person who is at once God and man, gave his blood for his church, 
i. e., died as to his human nature (Acts xx., 28). But human 
attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's divine nature, 
nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted of his human 
nature. 

11. What were the effects of this personal union upon the di- 
vine nature of Christ ? 

His divine nature being eternal and immutable, and of course 
incapable of addition, remained unaffected by this union. The 
whole immutable divine essence continued to subsist as the same 
eternal person. That divine person now embraced a perfect hu- 
man nature, exalted by, yet dependent upon, the divine nature, to 
which it is united. 

12. What were the effects of that union upon his human na- 
ture ? 

The human nature, being perfect after its kind, began to exist 
in union with the divine nature, and as one constituent of the 
divine person, and as such it ever continues distinct and uncon- 
founded. 

The effect of this union upon Christ's human nature, there- 
fore, was not so much change as exaltation of all natural and 
possible human excellence, in degree above every other creature, 
John i., 14 ; iii., 34 ; Is. xi., 2 ; together with an unparalleled 
exaltation of outward dignity and glory, above every name that 
is named, and a community of honor and worship with the di- 
vinity in virtue of its union therewith in the one divine person. 

13. Hoio far is the human nature of Christ included in the 
worship due to him T 



286 THE PEESOK OF CHRIST. 

We must distinguish between the object and the grounds of 
worship. There can be no proper ground of worship except the 
possession of divine attributes. The object of worship is not the 
divine excellence in the abstract, but the divine person of whom 
that excellence is an attribute. The God-man, consisting of two 
natures, is to be worshiped in the perfection of his entire person, 
because only of his divine attributes. 

14. If Christ had a reasonable soul how can we escape the 
conviction that he was a human person ? 

It is indeed a great mystery that the unity of personality 
should remain in the God-man, while there are two centers of 
consciousness, an infinite knowing on the one hand, and a finite 
knowing on the other, and two distinct though ever harmonious 
wills. The fact, however, that a God took, not a man, but a 
human nature into his eternal personality, is clearly revealed in 
Scripture. The one person in both God and man. The mystery 
remains for the exercise of our faith. 

15. What were the principle heresies which obtained in the 
early church concerning the constitution of Christ's person ? ■ 

1st. The Manichaaan heresy, disseminated by Manes, one of 
the converted Magi, who, during the third century taught a 
mixed system of religious philosophy, adapting the historical facts 
of Christianity to the peculiar principles of the Persian philoso- 
phy. He taught that Christ and the Holy Ghost were immediate 
emanations from the eternal God, superior to all creatures, and 
that the Christ of history was this spiritual being, who appeared 
among the Jews in the shadow or appearance of a material body, 
which existed only in the perception of men. As Manes taught 
that matter is essentially evil, and that Christ appeared for the 
very purpose of delivering human souls from their entanglement 
in matter, he necessarily also taught that Christ's human body 
was only an appearance assumed for the purpose of making his 
presence known to man as at present organized. 

2d. The Apollinarian heresy, disseminated by Apollinaris the 
younger, bishop of Laodicea, in the fourth century. He taught 
the orthodox doctrine concerning the trinity, and further that the 



HEEETICAL OPINIONS. 287 

Eternal Word, second person of the trinity, became incarnate by 
taking to himself a true human body. On the other hand he 
denied that Christ had a human soul, since the place of a soul in 
his person was occupied by his divinity. In his view, then, the 
person of Christ embraced (1.) the Eternal Word, (2.) a V^ 7 ?? or 
principle of sensitive animal life ; and (3.) a true human body— 
but no rational human soul. 

3d. The Nestorian heresy, charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian 
by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, 
by his enemy, Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril 
obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, 
A. D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of 
Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct 
persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, 
however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nes- 
torius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, "and that 
the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his 
uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then promi- 
nently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary the mother of God, 
because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ. 

4th. The Eutychian heresy, disseminated by Eutiches, an 
abbot of a convent in Constantinople in the fifth century, was 
precisely the opposite extreme to that charged upon Nestorius. 
He taught " that Christ was truly God and truly man, united in 
one person, but that these two natures after their union did not 
remain two distinct natures, but constituted one compound 
nature." — Mosheim's Eccle. Hist. 

5. While the Lutheran Church in her first standards affirm 
all the points of the orthodox doctrine as to the constitution of 
Christ's person, (see Augsburg Confession, article 3d,) yet, in 
order to maintain their doctrine of consubstantiation, or the lit- 
eral local presence of Christ's body and blood, with, in and under 
the bread and wine of the sacrament, many of her theologians 
have used language on this subject very much assimilated to the 
Eutychian heresy above defined. They teach that while Christ's 
single person consists of two distinct natures, yet, in their union, 
the human body and soul participate in divine attributes, e. g., 
his human soul participates in the omniscience, and his body in 
the omnipresence of his divine nature, etc. This doctrine (com- 



288 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 



municatio idiomatum) was opposed by Melancthon, but affirmed 
by the Formula of Concord, generally adopted circum, 1850. 

This imagination is inconsistent (1.) with the clearly revealed 
fact that the two natures in Christ are distinct, i. e., that he ever 
remains truly man as well as truly God. For, if his human soul 
• possesses divine attributes, it is no longer a human soul. (2.) 
With many passages of Scripture, which directly assert that his 
human nature ever continued subject to those limitations, as to 
knowledge, space and time, etc., which intrinsically belong to it 
as a creature, and as human. — Matt, xxviii., 5, 6 ; Mark xiii., 32 ; 
Luke ii., 52 ; Acts iii., 21 ; Heb. viii., 4. 



16. How can it be shown that the doctrine of the incarnation 
is a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel ? 

1st. This doctrine, and all the elements thereof, is set forth 
in the Scriptures with preeminent clearness and prominence. 

2d. Its truth is essentially involved in every other doctrine 
of the entire system of faith ; in every mediatorial act of Christ, 
as prophet, priest and king ; in the whole history of his estate 
of humiliation, and in every aspect of his estate of exaltation ; 
and, above all, in the significance and value of that vicarious sac- 
rifice which is the heart of the gospel. If Christ is not in the 
same person both Grod and man, he either could not die, or his 
death could not avail. If he be not man, his whole history is a 
myth ; if he be not God, to worship him is idolatry, yet not to 
worship him is to disobey the Father. — John v., 23. 

3d. Scripture expressly declares that this doctrine is essen- 
tial.—.! John, iv., 2, 3. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

1. What are the different senses of the word Mediator ', and 
in which of these senses is it used when applied to Christ ? 

1st. In the sense of internuntius or messenger, to explain the 
will and to perform the commands of one or both the contracting 
parties, e. g., Moses, G-al. iii., 19. 

2d. In the sense of simple advocate or intercessor, pleading 
the cause of the offending in the presence of the offended party. 

3d. In the sense of efficient peace-maker. Christ, as Mediator, 
1st, has all power and judgment committed to his hands, Matt, 
xxviii., 18, and ix., 6 ; John v., 22, 25, 26, 27 ; and, 2d, he effi- 
ciently makes reconciliation between God and man by an all- 
satisfactory expiation and meritorious obedience. 

2. Why was it necessary that the Mediator should be pos- 
sessed both of a divine and human nature ? 

1st. It was clearly necessary that the Mediator should be 
God. (1.) That he might be independent, and not the mere 
creature of either party, or otherwise he could not be the efficient 
maker of peace. (2.) That he might reveal God and his salva- 
tion to men, " For no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and 
he to whom the Son will reveal him/' Matt, xi., 27 ; John i., 18.. 
(3.) That being, as to person, above all law, and as to dignity of 
nature, infinite, he might render to the law in behalf of his peo- 
ple a free obedience, which he did not otherwise owe for himself, 
and that his obedience and suffering might possess an infinite 
value. (4.) That he might possess the infinite wisdom, knowl- 
edge, and power requisite to administer the infinite realms of 
providence and grace, which are committed to his hands as me- 
diatorial prince. 

19 



290 MEDIATOKIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

2d. It is clearly necessary that he should be man. (1.) That 
he might truly represent man as the second Adam. (2.) That 
he might he made under the law, in order to render obedience, 
suffering, and temptation possible, Gal. iv., 4, 5 ; Luke»iv., 1-13. 
(3.) " In ail things it behoved him to be made like unto his 
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest," 
Heb. ii., 17, 18, and iv., 15, 16. (4.) That in his glorified hu- 
manity he might be the head of the glorified church, the example 
and pattern to whom his people are "predestined to be con- 
formed, that he might be the first-born among many brethren," 
Eom. viii., 29. 

3. What diversity of opinion exists as to whether Christ acts 
as Mediator in one or both natures ? 

The Komanists hold that Christ was Mediator only in his hu- 
man nature, arguing that it is impossible that God could mediate 
between man and himself. 

The very opposite has been maintained, viz., that Christ was 
Mediator only in his divine nature. 

The doctrine of the Bible is, that Christ was Mediator as the 
God-man, in both natures. 

4. How may the acts of Christ be classified with reference to 
his two natures ? 

Theologians have properly distinguished (vide Turrettin, in 
loco) between the person who acts and the nature or inward 
energy whereby he acts. 

Thus we affirm of the one man, that he thinks and that he 
walks. The same person performs these two classes of action so 
radically distinct, in virtue of the two natures embraced in his 
single person. So the single person of the God-man performs all 
actions involving the attributes of a divine nature in virtue of his 
divine nature, and all actions involving the attributes of a human 
nature in virtue of his human nature. 

5. How can it be proved that he was Mediator, and acted as 
such both in his divine and human natures ? 

1st. From the fact that the discharge of each of the three 
great functions of the mediatorial office, the prophetical, priestly. 



CHRIST THE ONLY MEDIATOR 291 

and kingly, involves the attributes of both natures, as has been 
fully proved under question 2 

2d. From the fact that the Bible attributes all his acts as 
Mediator to the one person, viewed as embracing both natures. 
The person is often designated by a term derived from the attri- 
butes of one nature, while the mediatorial action attributed to 
that person is plainly performed in virtue of the other nature 
embraced within it. — See Acts xx., 28 ; 1 Cor. ii., 8 ; Heb. 
ix., 14. 

3d. From the fact that he was Mediator from the foundation 
of the earth, (see Chapter XIX., question 11,) it is clear that he 
was not Mediator in his human nature alone ; and from the fact 
that the Eternal Word became incarnate, in order to prepare him- 
self for the full discharge of his mediatorial work, (Heb. ii., 17, 
18,) it is equally plain that he was not Mediator in his divine na- 
ture alone. 

6. In what sense do the Romanists regard saints and angels 
as mediators ? 

They do not attribute either to saints or angels the work of 
propitiation proper. Yet they hold that the merits of the saint 
are the ground and measure of the efficiency of his intercession, 
as in the case of Christ. 

7. How far do they ascribe a mediatorial character to their 

2 



The Protestant holds that the church is composed of a com- 
pany of men united to one another in virtue of the immediate 
union of each with Christ the head. The Komanist holds, on the 
contrary, that each individual member is united immediately to 
the church, and through the church to Christ. Their priests, 
therefore, of the true apostolic succession, subject to apostolic 
bishops, being the only authorized dispensers of the sacraments, 
and through them of Christ's grace, are mediators — 

1st. Between the individual and Christ, the necessary link of 
union with him. 

2d. In their offering the sacrifice of the Mass, and making 
therein a true propitiation for the venial sins of the people, 
Christ's great sacrifice having atoned for original sin, and laid 



292 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

the foundation for the propitiatory virtue which belongs to the 



3d. In their being eminent intercessors. 

8. How can it be proved that Christ is our only Mediator in 
the proper sense of the term ? 

1st. Direct testimony of Scripture, 1 Tim. ii. ; 5. 

2d. Because the Scriptures show forth Christ as fulfilling in 
our behalf every mediatorial function that is necessary, alike pro- 
pitiation and advocacy, 1 John ii., 1 ; on earth and in heaven, 
Heb. ix., 12, 24, and vii., 25. 

3d. Because in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person and 
perfection of his nature, all these functions were discharged by 
him exhaustively, Heb. x., 14 ; Col. ii., 10. 

4th. Because there is " complete" salvation in him, and no 
salvation in any other, and no man can come to the Father ex- 
cept through him, John xiv., 6 ; Acts iv., 12. 

5th. There is no room for any mediator between the individual 
and Christ, (1.) because he is our " brother" and " sympathising 
high priest," who invites every man immediately to himself, 
Matt, xi., 28 ; (2.). because the work of drawing men to Christ 
belongs to the Holy Ghost, John vi., 44, and xvi., 14. 

9. What relation do the Scriptures represent the Holy Ghost 
as sustaining to the mediatorial work of Christ ? 

1st. Begetting and replenishing his human nature, Luke i., 
35 ; ii., 40 ; John hi., 34 ; Ps. xlv., 7. 

2d. All Christ's mediatorial functions were fulfilled in the 
Spirit ; his prophetical teachings, his priestly sacrifice, and his 
kingly administrations. The Spirit descended upon him at his 
baptism, Luke iii., 22 ; and led him into the wilderness to be 
' tempted, Matt, iv., 1 ; he returned in the power of the Spirit into 
Galilee, Luke iv., 14 ; through the eternal Spirit he offered him- 
self without spot to God, Heb. ix., 14. 

3d. The dispensation of the Spirit, as " the Spirit of truth," 
" the Sanctifier," and " the Comforter, ' vests in Christ as Medi- 
ator, as part of the condition of the covenant of grace, John xv., 
26, and xvi., 7 ; and vii., 39 ; Acts ii., 33. 

4th. The Holy Spirit thus dispensed by Christ as Mediator 



PROPHET, PRIEST, AND KING. 293 

acts for him, and leads to him in teaching, quickening, sanctifying, 
preserving, and acting all grace in his people. As Christ when on 
earth led only to the Father, so the Holy Ghost now leads only to 
Christ, John xv., 26, and xvi., 13, 14 ; Acts v., 32 ; 1 Cor. xii., 3. 

5th. While Christ as Mediator is said to "^ our "napdKXrjTog," 
" advocate/' with the Father, (1 John ii., 1,) the Holy Ghost is 
said to be our ee irapaK^rog" " advocate," translated "Comforter" 
on earth, to abide with us for ever, to teach us the things of 
Christ, and to hold a controversy with the world, John xiv., 16, 
26, and xv., 26, and xvi., 7-9. 

6th. While Christ is said to be our Mediator to make inter- 
cession for us in heaven, Heb. vii., 25 ; Rom. viii., 34, the Holy 
Ghost, by forming thoughts and desires within us according to 
the will of God, is said to make intercession for us with unutter- 
able groanings, Rom. viii., 26, 27. 

7th. The sum of the whole is, " We have introduction to the 
Father through the Son by the Spirit," Eph. ii., 18. 

10. On what ground are the threefold offices of prophet, priest 
and Icing applied to Christ ? 

1st. Because these three functions are all equally necessary, 
and together exhaust the whole mediatorial work. 

2d. Because the Bible ascribes all of these functions to Christ. 
Prophetical, Deut. xviii., 15, 18 ; compare Acts iii., 22, and vii., 
37 ; Heb. i., 2 ; priestly, Ps. ex., 4, and the whole Epistle to the 
Hebrews ; kingly, Acts v., 31 ; 1 Tim. vi., 15 ; Rev. xvii., 14. 

It is always to be remembered that these are not three offices, 
but three functions of the one indivisible office of mediator. 
These functions are abstractly most distinguishable, but in the 
concrete and in their exercise they qualify one another in every 
act. Thus, when he teaches, he is essentially a royal and priestly 
teacher, and when he rules he is a priestly and prophetical king, 
and when he either atones or intercedes he is a prophetical and 
kingly priest. 

11. What is the scriptural sense of the word prophet ? 

Its general sense is one who speaks for another with authority 
as interpreter. Thus Moses was prophet for his brother Aaron, 
Ex. vii., 1. 



294 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for 
God to men. Foretelling future events is only incidental. 

12. How does Christ execute the office of a prophet ? 

I. Immediately in his own person, as when (1.) on earth with 
his disciples, and (2.) the light of the new Jerusalem in the midst 
of the throne, Kev. xxi., 23. 

II. Mediately, 1st, through his Spirit, (1.) by inspiration, (2.) 
by spiritual illumination. 2d. Through the officers of his church, 
(1.) those inspired as apostles and prophets, and (2.) those natur- 
ally endowed, as the stated ministry, Eph. iv. 11. 

III. Both externally, as through his word and works ad- 
dressed to the understanding, and, 

IV. Internally, by the spiritual illumination of the heart, 1 
John ii., 20, and v., 20. 

V. In three grand successive stages of development, a Before 
his incarnation ; b since his incarnation ; c throughout eternity 
in glory, Bev. vii., 17, and xxi., 23. 

13. How can it be proved that he acted as such before his in- 
carnation ? 

1st. His divine title of Logos, " Word," as by nature as well 
as office the eternal Kevealer. 

2d. It has been before proved (Chap. XIX., question 11, and 
Chap. VIII., question 12) that he was the Jehovah of the Old Tes- 
tament economy. Called Counselor, Is. ix., 6. Angel of the Cov- 
enant, Mai. hi., 1. Interpreter, Job xxxiii., 23. 

3d. The fact is directly affirmed in the New Testament, 1 
Pet. i., 11. 

14. What is essential to the priestly office, or what is a priest 
in the scriptural sense of that term ? 

As the general idea of a prophet is, one qualified and author- 
ized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of a priest is, 
one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men with God. 

A priest, therefore, must — 

1st. Be taken from among men to represent them, Heb. v., 
1, 2 ; Ex. xxviii., 9, 12, 21, 29. 



MEDIATOKIAL PRIEST. 295 

2d. Chosen by God as his special election and property, Num. 
xvi., 5 ; Heb. v., 4. 

3d. Holy, morally pure and consecrated to the Lord, Lev. 
xxi., 6, 8 ; Ps. cvi., 16 ; Ex. xxxix., 30, 31. 

4th. They have a right to draw near to Jehovah, and to bring 
near, or offer sacrifice, and to make intercession, Num. xvi., 5 ; 
Ex. xix., 22 ; Lev. xvi., 3, 7, 12, 15. 

The priest, therefore, was essentially a mediator, admitted 
from among men to stand before God, for the purpose, 1st, of 
propitiation by sacrifice, Heb. v., 1, 2, 3 ; and, 2d, of intercession, 
Luke i., 10 ; Ex. xxx., 8 ; Kev. v., 8, and viii., 3, 4. — Taken from 
Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. II., Part III., Chap. III. 

15. Prove from the Old Testament that Christ was truly a 
priest. 

1st. It is expressly declared. Compare Ps. ex., 4, with Heb. 
v., 6, and vi., 20 ; Zech. vi., 13. 

2d. Priestly functions are ascribed to him, Is. liii., 10, 12 ; 
Dan. ix., 24, 25. 

3d. The whole meaning and virtue of the temple, of its ser- 
vices, and of the Levitical priesthood lay in the fact that they were 
all typical of Christ and his work as priest. This Paul clearly 
proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

16. Show from the New Testament that all the requisites of a 
priest were found in him. 

1st. Christ was a man taken from among men to represent 
them before God, Heb. ii., 16, and iv., 15. 

2d. He was chosen by God, Heb. v., 5, 6. 

3d. He was perfectly holy, Luke i., 35 ; Heb. vii., 26. 

4th. He had the right of the nearest access, and the greatest 
influence with the Father, John xvi., 28, and xi., 42 ; Heb. i., 
3, and ix., 11, 12, 13, 14, 24. 

17. Show that he actually performed all the duties of the 
office. 

The duty of the priest is to mediate by (1.) propitiation, (2.) 
intercession. 



296 MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST. 

1st. He mediated in the general sense of the word, John 
xiv., 6 ; 1 Tim., ii., 5 ; Heb. viii., 6, and xii., 24. 

2d. He offered propitiation, Eph. v., 2 ; Heb. ix., 26, and 
x., 12 ; 1 John, ii., 2. 

3d. He offered intercession, Eom. viii., 34 ; Heb. vii., 25 ; 
1 John, ii., 1. 

That this propitiatory work of Christ was real, and not meta- 
phorical, is evident from the fact that it superseded the temple 
services, which were only typical of it. A type and shadow 
necessarily presupposes a literal substance, Heb. ix., 10-12, and 
x., 1 ; Col. ii., 17. 

18. What part of his priestly work did Christ execute on 
earth, and what part in heaven ? 

On earth he rendered obedience, propitiation, intercession, 
Heb. v., 7-9, and ix., 26, 28 ; Kom. v., 19. 

In heaven he has presented his sacrifice in the most holy 
place, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Heb. vii., 24, 
25, and ix., 12, 24. 

19. In what respects did the priesthood of Christ excel the 
Aaronic ? 

1st. In the dignity of his person. They were mere men. He 
was the eternal Son. They were sinners who had first to make 
atonement for their own sin, and afterwards for the sin of the 
people. He was holy, harmless and undefiled, Heb. vii., 26, 27. 
He was perfect man, and yet his access to God was infinitely 
nearer than that of any other being, John x., 30 ; Zech. xiii., 7. 

2d. In the infinite value of his sacrifice. Theirs could not 
cleanse from sin, Heb. x., 4, and were repeated continually, Heb. 
x., 1-3. His sacrifice was perfectly efficacious, and once for all, 
Heb. x., 10-14. Thus theirs were only the shadow of his, Heb. 
x.,1. 

3d. In the manner of their consecration. They without, he 
with an oath, Heb. vii., 20-22. 

4th. They, being many, succeeded each other by generation. 
He continue th for ever, Heb. vii., 24. 

5th. Christ's priesthood is connected with a "greater and 



MEDIATOKIAL PKIEST. 297 

more perfect tabernacle/' earth the outer court, heaven the true 
sanctuary, Heb. ix., 11-24. 

6th. Christ's intercession is offered from a throne, Rom. viii., 
34, and Heb. viii., 1, 2. 

7th. While several of the Old Testament servants of God 
were at once both prophet and king, as David ; and others both 
prophet and priest, as Ezra ; Christ alone, and that in divine 
perfection, was at once prophet, priest and king. Thus his 
divine prophetical and kingly perfections qualified and enhanced 
the transcendant virtue of every priestly act. — Zech. vi., 13. 

20. In what sense was Christ a priest after the order of Mel- 
chizedec ? 

The Aaronic priesthood was typical of Christ, but in two 
principal respects it failed in representing the great antitype. 

1st. It consisted of succeeding generations of mortal men. 
2d. It consisted of priests not royal. 

The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, suddenly brings Mel- 
chizedec before us in the patriarchal history, a royal priest, with 
the significant names " King of Righteousness" and " King of 
Peace," Gen. xiv., 18-20, and as suddenly withdraws him. 
Whence he comes and whither he goes we know not. As a pri- 
vate man he had an unwritten history, like others. But as a 
royal priest he ever remains without father, without mother, 
without origin, succession, or end ; and therefore, as Paul says, 
Heb. vii., 3, made beforehand of God, an exact type of the eter- 
nity of the priesthood of Christ, Ps. ex., 4. The prophecy was, 
" Thou shalt be a priest/or ever," or an eternal priest " after the 
order of Melchizedec." 

The similitude of this type, therefore, included two things : 
1st, an everlasting priesthood ; 2d, the union of the kingly and 
priestly functions in one person. — Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. II., 
Part III., Chap. III. 

21. Hoiv can it be proved that the Christian ministry is not 
a priesthood ? 

1st. Human priests were ever possible only as types, but types 
are possible only before the revelation of the antitype. The pur- 



298 MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHEIST. 

pose of the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled in Christ, and there- 
fore the institution was for ever abolished by Christ, Heb. x., 

I, 9, 18. 

2d. Christ exhaustively discharges all the duties and pur- 
poses of the priestly office, so that any human priest (so called) 
is an antichrist, Heb. x., 14 ; Col. ii., 10. 

3d. There can be no need of any priest to open the way for 
us to Christ. Because, while the Scriptures teach us that we 
can only go to G-od by Christ, John xiv., 6, they teach us no 
less emphatically that we must come immediately to Christ, 
Matt, xi., 28 ; John v., 40, and vii., 37 ; Kev. hi, 20, and 
xxii., 17. 

4th. No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Tes- 
tament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordinary. 
The whole duty of all these officers of every kind is comprised in 
the functions of teaching and ruling, 1 Cor. xii., 28 ; Eph. iv., 

II, 12 ; 1 Tim. iii., 1-13 ; 1 Pet. v., 2. 

5th. They are constantly called by different designations, ex- 
pressive of an entirely different class of functions, as " messengers, 
watchmen, heralds of salvation, teachers, rulers, overseers, shep- 
herds, and elders." — See Bib. Eepertory, Jan., 1845. 

22. In what sense are all believers priests ? 

Although there can not be in the Christian church any class 
of priests standing between their brethren and Christ, yet in con- 
sequence of the union, both federal and vital, which every Chris- 
tian sustains to Christ, which involves fellowship with him in all 
of his human graces, and in all of his mediatorial functions and 
prerogatives, every believer has part in the priesthood of his head 
in such a sense that he has immediate access to God through 
Christ, even into the holiest of all, Heb. x., 19-22 ; and that 
being sanctified and spiritually qualified, he may there offer up, 
as a " holy priest," a " royal priest," spiritual sacrifices, not ex- 
piatory, but the oblation of praise, supplication and thanksgiving, 
through Jesus Christ, and intercession for living friends, Heb. 
xiii., 15 ; 1 Tim. ii., 1, 2 ; 1 Pet. ii., 5, 9. 

They are by equal reason also prophets and kings in fellow- 
ship with Christ, 1 John ii., 20 ; John xvi., 13 ; Kev. i., 6, and 
v., 10. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION, AND 
EXTENT. 

I. The Nature of the Atonement. 

1. What is the meaning of the word atonement, as used in 
Scripture ? 

The word atonement occurs but once in the English transla- 
tion of the New Testament, Eom. v., 11. But the Greek word, 
of which in that case it is a translation, KaraXXayrj, and the verb 
of the same origin and meaning, KaraXXdaao), (to change, ex- 
change, to reconcile,) occur together ten times in the New Testa- 
ment, viz., Eom. v., 10, twice ; v., 11 ; xi., 15 ; 1 Cor. vii., 11 ; 
2 Cor. v., 18, twice, verse 19, twice, and verse 20. In every case 
the verb is translated to reconcile, and except in Rom. v., 11, the 
noun is rendered, reconciliation. The mode of this reconciliation 
being clearly indicated, (Rom. v., 10,) viz., " by the death of his 
Son." 

Throughout the Old Testament the word atonement is con- 
stantly used to signify the reconciliation of God, by means of 
bloody sacrifices, to men alienated from him by the guilt of sin. 
The priest made atonement for the transgressors of the law, by 
sacrifices, and it was forgiven them, Lev. iv., 20 ; v., 6 ; vi., 7 ; 
xii., 8 ; xiv., 18 ; Num. xv., 25. On the great " day of atone- 
ment" the high priest made atonement, first, for his own sin, by 
the sacrifice of a bullock, and then for the sins of all the people, 
by the sacrifice of a goat ; and then the sins thus atoned for were 
confessed and laid upon the head of the live goat, and carried 
away by him into oblivion. — Lev. xvi., 6-22. 

2. How do the words atonement and satisfaction differ ? 
Satisfaction is the more specific term ; atonement is the re- 




300 CHKIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

conciliation of God to man by the death of his Son. Satisfaction 
expresses the relation which the work of Christ sustains to the 
demands of God's law and justice. 

3. Wherein does the satisfaction rendered by Christ consist ? 

By the conditions of the covenant of grace, Christ assumes 
precisely the place and all the obligations of his people, under the 
broken and unsatisfied covenant of works. These obligations 
were evidently, 1st, perfect obedience as the condition of reward ; 
and, 2d, the penalty of death incurred by the failure of obedience 
both in their representative Adam and in their own persons. 

4. How may it be proved that the " active obedience" of 
Christ to the precepts of the law enters into his satisfaction ? 

1st. The necessity of the case. The position of Christ was 
that of second Adam, 1 Cor. xv., 22, 45. He came to fulfill the 
law in our behalf. But the law demands obedience as its con- 
dition of life, Rom. x., 5. Here the first Adam had failed. 

2d. The fixed meaning of the word dcKaioavvr), righteousness, 
in the New Testament, is perfect conformity to the whole law, 
Rom. vi., 13, 16 ; viii., 4 ; x., 4 ; Phil, iii., 6 ; Tit. iii., 5 ; 1 
John ii., 29. Yet Christ is said to be for us, " the end of the law 
for righteousness/' Rom. x., 4, and we are said to be made, " the 
righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. v., 21. 

3d. It is expressly asserted in Rom. v., 19, where Adam's dis- 
obedience, which subjected us to guilt, is contrasted with the 
obedience of Christ, whereby we are made righteous. 

5. What is the Socinian view as to the nature of the atone- 
ment ? 

They deny, 1st, of sin, that it inherently, for its own sake, 
deserves punishment, and, 2d, of God, that his infinitely perfect 
righteousness determines him to demand the punishment of all 
sin. On the other hand they hold that God may, in perfect con- 
sistency with his benevolent care for the best interests of his gen- 
eral moral government, forgive sin at any time, upon the repent- 
ance of the sinner. The death of Christ, therefore, was designed 
simply to soften the heart, and to encourage the confidence of the 



NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 301 

sinner in God, and so dispose him to repentance, by that eminent 
exhibition of divine love. — Cat. Kacov., pp. 261-268. 

6. What is the Governmental theory as to the nature of the 
atonement 1 

The advocates of this theory, which is distinctively New En- 
gland and New School, agree with the Socinians in their funda- 
mental propositions. 

1st. That sin does not intrinsically deserve punishment, i. e., 
the true end of punishment is rather to prevent sin, than to sat- 
isfy vindicatory justice, and, 2d, that there is no principle in God 
which demands the punishment of all sin for its own sake alone. 

On the other hand, they differ from the Socinians in denying 
that God can consistently forgive sin upon the mere repentance 
of the sinner, since such a habit, on his part, would be inconsis- 
tent with the good government of the universe, by removing all 
the restraints which fear of punishment presents to sin. They re- 
gard the sufferings of Christ, therefore, as designed to make a 
moral impression upon the universe, by the emphatic display of 
God's determination to punish sin, and thus to make the forgive- 
ness of sinful men consistent with the good government of the 
moral universe as a whole. 

7. How may that system he disproved ? 

1st. This system regards the ill desert of sin as resulting from 
its tendency to produce disorder in the universe. But it is an 
ultimate fact of consciousness that virtue intrinsically deserves 
well, and that sin intrinsically is ill desert. (1.) Every awakened 
conscience feels this. (2.) God constantly asserts it, Jer. xliv., 
4 ; Deut. xxv., 16. (3.) It is implied in all punishment. For 
any man to be hung for the good of the community is murder, 
and for any soul to be damned for the sake of an example would 
be an infinite outrage. 

2d. This system resolves the justice of God into a mode of his 
universal benevolence, and denies that his perfect righteousness 
unchangeably demands the punishment of all sin, simply as such, 
in exact proportion to its ill desert. This is contrary to Scrip- 
tures, Heb. i. 13 ; Ps. v., 4, 5 ; Prov. xvii., 15 ; Heb. xii., 29, vi., 
10 ; Kom. iii., 5 ; 2 Thess. i., 6, 8. 



302 



CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 



3d. It represents God as deriving the motives of his acts from 
the exigencies of his creation, and not from the inherent princi- 
ples of his own nature, which is derogatory to his sovereignty and 
independence. 

4th. It degrades the infinite work of Christ to the poor level 
of a governmental adjustment, whereas it was the most glorious 
exhibition of eternal principles. 

5th. This system makes the atonement a theatrical inculca- 
tion of principles, which were not truly involved in the case. For 
if Christ died, not that the sins of his people which he bore should 
be truly punished in him, but only to manifest to the moral uni- 
verse that sin must be punished, it is very evident that then sin 
was not punished in this case, and that Christ's death conse- 
quently could not teach the really intelligent portion of the uni- 
verse any such lesson as that sin must be punished, but rather 
the reverse. 

6th. It has no support in Scripture, it is advocated simply on 
the principles of rational science, so called. 

7th. It is absolutely inconsistent with the positive teaching 
of the Scriptures respecting the work of Christ, Is. liii. ; Gal. iii., 
13 ; Kom. via., 3 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Heb. ix., 28. 
For only through this satisfaction to justice was it possible for 
God to be both just and the justifier of the transgressor, Kom. 
iii., 26. 

8th. If Christ's death is merely designed to produce a moral 
impression on the universe ; if it did not really render satisfaction 
to divine justice, in what sense can we be said to be united to 
Christ, to die with him, or to rise again with him ? " What is 
meant by living by faith, of which he is the object ? The 
fact is, this theory changes the whole nature of the gospel ; 
the nature of faith, and of justification, the mode of access 
to God, our relation to Christ, and the inward exercises of 
communion with him." — Hodge's Keview of Beman on the Atone- 
ment. 



8. State the common orthodox doctrine of the atonement. 

The Socinian theory sets forth the sufferings of Christ as de- 
signed to produce a moral effect upon the heart of the individual 
sinner. 



NATUKE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 303 

The governmental theory claims that that work was designed 
to produce a moral effect upon the intelligent universe. 

The orthodox view, while embracing both of the above as 
incidental ends, maintains that the immediate and chief end of 
Christ's work was to satisfy that essential principle of the divine 
nature which demands the punishment of sin. This theory em- 
braces the following points : 

" 1st. Sin for its own sake deserves the wrath and curse of God, 
2d. God is disposed, from the very excellence of his nature, to treat 
his creatures as they deserve. 3d. To satisfy the righteous judg- 
ment of God, his Son assumed our nature, was made under the 
law, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the punishment of our 
sins. 4th. By his righteousness, those who believe are consti- 
tuted righteous, his merit being so imputed to them that they 
are regarded as righteous in the sight of God." — Hodge's Essays, 
p. 131. 

9. In what sense ivere Christ's sufferings penal, and what is 
the difference betiveen calamity, chastisement, and punishment ? 

Calamity is suffering, which has no relation to sin ; chastise- 
ment, that suffering which is designed for the improvement of the 
sufferer ; punishment, that which is designed for the satisfaction 
of justice. The penalty of the law is that suffering which the 
law demands as a satisfaction to justice for the violation of its 
commands. — Hodge's Essays, p. 152. 

The sufferings of Christ were penal, therefore, because he suf- 
fered precisely that kind and degree of evil that divine justice 
demanded as a complete satisfaction for all the sins of all his 
people. — Is. liii. ; Gal. iii., 13 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; Eom. viii., 3 ; 2 
Cor., v., 21. His sufferings are said to have been penal in dis- 
tinction, 1st, to calamity or chastisement ; 2d, to pecuniary sat- 
isfaction. 

10. State the difference between pecuniary and penal satis- 
faction. 

" 1st. In the one case, the demand is upon the thing due ; in 
the other, it is upon the person of the criminal. 2d. In the one, 
the demand is for an exact equivalent— a piece of money in the 
hands of a king is of no more value than in the hands of a peas- 



304 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

ant ; in the other case, the demand being upon the person, and 
for the satisfaction of justice, must be satisfied by very different 
kinds and degrees of punishment, depending upon the dignity of 
the person and the conditions of the law. 3d. The creditor is 
bound to accept the payment of the debt, no matter by whom 
offered ; whereas, in the case of crime, the sovereign is neither 
bound to provide a substitute, nor to accept one when offered. 
4th. Hence penal satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate ; the 
acceptance is a matter of free grace, and is determined by arrange- 
ment or covenant." — Hodge's Essays, pp. 165, 166. 

11. What is the penalty of the law, and in what sense did 
Christ bear that penalty ? 

" The penalty of the law in Scripture is called c death/ 
which includes every kind of evil inflicted by divine justice in 
punishment of sin, and inasmuch as Christ suffered such evil, 
and to such a degree as fully satisfied divine justice, he suffered 
what the Scriptures call the penalty of the law. It is not any 
specific kind or degree of suffering. The penalty in the case of 
the individual sinner involves remorse, despair, and eternal ban- 
ishment from God ; in the case of Christ, they involved none of 
these. It is not the nature, but the relation of sufferings to the 
law that gives them their distinctive value." It is not the de- 
gree of the sufferings merely, but the dignity of the sufferer also, 
which determines their sin-atoning efficacy. — Hodge's Essays, 
p. 152. 

Our standards declare that the penalty of the law in the case 
of Christ includes " the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, 
the accursed death of the cross, and continuance under the power 
of death for a time." 

12. In what sense and on what ground were the sufferings of 
Christ equivalent to the sufferings of all his people ? 

They were unutterably great, and equivalent to the sufferings 
of all his people, not in a pecuniary sense as precisely a quid pro 
quo, both in kind and degree ; but in a penal sense, as in the 
judgment of God fully satisfying in their behalf all the penal 
claims of the law. 



NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 305 

The ground upon which G-od judges the sufferings of Christ 
to be, in a penal sense, equivalent to the sufferings of all his peo- 
ple, is not the nature or degree of that suffering, but the dignity 
of the sufferer. Those sufferings, though endured in a finite na- 
ture, were of infinite value, because of the infinite dignity of his 
person. 

13. In what sense were Christ's sufferings vicarious, and in 
what sense was he the substitute of his people ? 

A substitute is one who acts or suffers in the place of or in be- 
half of another, and that is, vicarious obedience or suffering which 
is rendered or endured by the substitute in the place of another. 
In this sense Christ is our substitute, and his sufferings vica- 
rious.— Eom. v., 8 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ; 
iii., 18 ; Isa. liii., 6. 

14. What were the qualifications necessary for such a sub- 
stitute ? 

1st. That he should be personally independent of the law, 
owing it nothing on his own account. 

2d. That, possessing the same identical nature with man, he 
might be made under the law, and introduced into precisely the 
same legal and covenant relations sustained by those for whom 
he stood. 

3d. That his person should possess infinite dignity, in order 
to give an infinite moral value to his finite sufferings. 

4th. That there should be a sovereign designation upon the 
part of the Father, and a voluntary assumption on the part of 
the Son, of the position of covenanted head and legal representa- 
tive of his elect. 

15. What is the Scriptural meaning of the phrase " to bear 
sin or iniquity ?" and show what light is thence thrown on the 
nature of the atonement. 

The phrase, " to bear sin or iniquity," has a perfectly definite 
usage, and it signifies to bear the guilt of sin, or the penal con- 
sequences attached by the law to sin. — Lev. v., 1 ; x., 17 ; xvi., 
22 ; xx., 20 ; Num. xviii., 22 ; Ezek. xviii., 19, 20. 

Of course, this language, which is applied frequently to Christ, 
20 



306 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

(Heb. ix., 28 ; Isa. liii., 6, 11, 12 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24,) precisely de- 
fines the relation of his sufferings to the penalty of the law. 

16. In what sense was Christ an offering for sin ? 

Both Jews and Grentiles were familiar with sacrifices for sin, 
and both recognized in them precisely the same transference of 
guilt from the offerer to the victim, and the extinguishment of 
that guilt by the death of the victim. This was the definite 
sense of the phrase universally received bv those to whom the 
apostle wrote. 

This is plain — 

1st. Because without the shedding of blood there was no re- 
mission, Heb. ix., 22. " For the life of the flesh is in the blood, 
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement 
for your souls," Lev. xvii., 11. Life was substituted for life. 

2d. The sacrifice must be spotless, Lev. hi., 1. A spotless 
life must be offered in place of one forfeited by the guilt of sin. 

3d. The offerer laid his hands upon the victim, which act was 
symbolical of transfer, Lev. i., 4 ; iii., 2 ; iv., 4, 15 ; 2 Chron. 
xxix., 23; and confessed his sins, and his sins were laid upon the 
victim, Lev. xvi., 21. 

All this was said to be the shadow of good things to come, 
while the substance is Christ. He is called " the Lamb of God," 
"Lamb without blemish and without spot," "his blood cleanseth 
from all sin," "his soul is an offering for sin," Isa. liii., 10; 1 John 
i., 7 ; John i., 29 ; 1 Pet. i., 19.— Hodge's Essays, p. 149 ; Fair- 
bairn's Typology, Vol. II., p. 221. 

17. State the argument on this subject derived from those 
passages which ascribe our salvation to the death or blood of 
Christ. 

See 1 Pet. i., 19 ; Kev. v., 9 ; 1 John i., 7 ; Kom. v., 9, 10 ; 
Heb. ix., 15 ; ii., 9, 14, 15. In these and similar passages it is 
taught that the "death" or "blood of Christ" " redeems us" 
"cleanses us from sin" "justifies us" "reconciles us to God" 
"delivers us from bondage" "redeems us from the curse of the 
law" This language can mean nothing, if the sole purpose of 
Christ's death was to produce a moral impression either upon the 
individual sinner, or upon the universe as a common subject of 



NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 307 

divine government. But their use is appropriate, if the death of 
Christ really satisfies God's justice, and by satisfying the penalty 
of the law removes, by ending, the guilt, or legal obligations of 



18. In luliat sense is Christ said to have purchased or re- 
deemed his church ? 

Two Greek words are translated by the word redeem in our 
version, 1st, Xvtqocd, to release for a ransom, mid., to ransom, 
redeem. 2d. ^ayogd^o, to buy out of the hands of to redeem, buy 
off. These, of course, when applied to the work of Christ, 1 Pet. 
i., 18, etc., are not to be understood in the sense of a pecuniary 
transaction, i. e., purchase by the payment of an exact equivalent 
in value. But if they mean any thing they must teach that Christ 
has acquired a right to his church by doing and suffering that 
which God has demanded as the condition of its deliverance and 
his possession. It is expressly said that the ransom demanded was 
his blood, and that the condition from which his church was 
bought off was that of subjection to the curse of the law. 

19. How can the Bible doctrine of the nature of the atone- 
ment be further proved from the revealed fact that Christ offered 
himself to God as our High Priest ? 

That he is truly a priest, and that he fulfilled all the func- 
tions of that office has been fully proved above, Chapter XXI., 
questions 14-17. Xow when an Israelite sinned he went to the 
priest, who, taking a victim, offered it to God* life for life, and 
thus making atonement for sin it was forgiven the transgressor, 
Lev. iv., 20, 26, 31 ; v., 10, 18. " Therefore it is of necessity 
that this man have somewhat also to offer," and " not by the blood 
of goats and calves, but by his own blood he hath obtained an eter- 
nal redemption for us," Heb. viii., 3 ; ix., 12. The priest never 
offered the sacrifice to obtain the possibility of salvation for his 
client, nor to manifest the determination of God to punish sin, but 
always to obtain remission of the penalty. 

20. How may it be shown that the substitution of Christ in 
the place of his people did not cause him to become personally a 
sinner. 



308 



CHEIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 



Keason and Scripture alike teach that the personal character 
of one man can never be transferee! to another, but, on the other 
hand, that the legal responsibility, or liability to punishment, un- 
der which one man's labors may be transferred to another, when- 
soever sovereign authority recognizes one as legally representing 
the other. Christ is said (2 Cor. v., 21) " to be made sin for us" 
in the same sense that we are said " to be made the righteousness 
of God in him." When we are justified, or declared to be righte- 
ous for Christ's sake, we are no less than before personally sinners 
in heart and habit, because it is his legal merit, and not his per- 
sonal holiness, that is counted ours. So Christ remains no less 
infinitely "holy, harmless, and undefiled," when the chastise- 
ment of our sins is laid upon him, or their legal responsibility 
counted his. 



21. Shoiv that the doctrine of a full satisfaction to justice does 
not destroy the gratuitous nature of salvation. 

1st. Christ did not die to make the Father love the elect, but 
was given to die because of that love, John iii., 16 ; 1 John iv., 9. 

2d. Christ made full satisfaction to divine justice in order to 
render the exercise of love consistent with justice, Kom. iii., 26 ; 
Ps. lxxxv., 10. The greater the obstacle, and the more costly the 
price demanded of love by justice, the greater the love and the 
freer. On this ground God commendeth his love, Rom. v., 8. 

3d. God the Father and God the Son are one God, identical 
in nature, moved by the same love, and exacting the same satis- 
faction. 

4th. Penal satisfaction differs from pecuniary. If a sovereign 
appoints or accepts a substitute it is all of grace. 

5th. To Christ, as Mediator, the purchased salvation of his 
people belongs of right, from the terms of the eternal covenant, 
but to us that salvation is given in all its elements, stages, and 
instrumentalities only as a free and sovereign favor. The gift 
is gratuitous if the beneficiary has no shadow of claim to it, 
and if no conditions are exacted of him. The less worthy 
the beneficiary is, and the more difficult the conditions which 
justice exacts of the giver, the more eminently gratuitous the 
gift is. 



NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 309 

II. The necessity of the Atonement. 

22. What view do the Socinians entertain as to the ground 
of the necessity of Christ's death ? 

Every man's view of the grounds upon which the necessity of 
Christ's atoning work rests must be determined by his view as to 
its nature. For the Socinian view, as to the nature of the atone- 
ment, see above, question 5. The necessity of the atonement ac- 
cording to this view, therefore, results simply in the indisposition 
of men to repent, and the necessity of providing motives adequate 
to that end. 

23. On what grounds do those who maintain the governmental 
theory of the atonement hold it to have been necessary ? 

See above, question 6. According to this view the necessity 
of the atonement springs from the exigencies of God's general, 
moral government, which demand uniform and certain punish- 
ment as a warning to the subject, and thus as a restraint upon sin. 

24. What is the doctrine of those ivho admit only a hypotheti- 
cal necessity for the atonement ? 

These truly hold that the necessity for the atonement is in 
God, but they err in maintaining that this necessity springs from 
his mere will, and not from his nature, and that God sovereignly 
chose this as one of many ways of reconciling the forgiveness of 
sins with himself and his moral government. 

25. What is the Scriptural view of the ground of this neces- 
sity ? 

1st. Sin itself intrinsically deserves punishment. 2d. God is, 
by the perfection of his own righteous nature, immutably de- 
termined to punish all sin as intrinsically hateful. 3d. The 
necessity for the atonement, therefore, lies in God's infinite, wise, 
holy, just, free, and immutable nature. 

26. How can the absolute necessity of the atonement be proved, 
i. e., on the assumption that sin is to be pardoned ? 

Every argument set forth above to prove that the atonement 



310 



CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 



was designed to satisfy divine justice for the sins of Christ's peo- 
ple, also clearly proves that it was absolutely necessary to the end 
of their salvation. There can be no such thing as an unnecessary 
" ransom/' or " satisfaction," or " penal sufferings." 

This is further evident from, 1st. The inherent ill desert of sin. 
2d. The inherent righteousness of God. 3d. The nature of the 
human conscience, which will not be pacified unless justice be 
satisfied. 4. From the nature of God as infinitely merciful, and 
from the nature of the gospel as an eminent provision of mercy. 
Suffering not necessary would be inconsistent with both. 5th. 
From the infinite greatness and glory of the sufferer. " God so 
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." If that gift 
was not absolutely necessary to our salvation, it would be no real 
measure of God's love for us. 6th. God is limited by no impos- 
sibilities without himself, but it is his glory that his will is 
always freely determined by the immutable perfections of his 
nature. 

III. The Perfection of the Atonement. 



27. What is the Romish doctrine as to the perfection of the 
atonement ? 

The Komish theologians admit that the value of Christ's 
death is infinite ; their frequent expression is, that " one drop of 
Christ's blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." 
Yet they hold that the direct effect of Christ's satisfaction is only 
to atone for original sin, and to redeem believers from the eternal 
punishment thereof. Ail earthly sorrows they regard rather in the 
light of expiations than of chastisements. All sins committed 
after baptism must be expiated by sufferings endured by the be- 
liever in person. Thus they attribute to the repeated sacrifice of 
Christ's person in the Mass, to the pains of penance and purgatory, 
a real sin-atoning efficacy. They also hold that the death of 
Christ has secured an infinite fund of merit, the dispensation of 
which is intrusted to the church, whence flows the efficiency of 
priestly absolution, sacramental grace, and indulgences. — See Cat. 
Kom., Part II., Chapters IV. and V., and Decrees of Council of 
Trent, Sess. 13 and 14 



PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 311 

28. What is the doctrine of the Remonstrants or Dutch dis- 
ciples of Arminius on this subject ? 

They taught that the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to atone 
for the sins of all men resulted from the free and gracious estima- 
tion of it as sufficient by God. — Limborch's Theologia Chris- 
tiana 3, 22.5. and 21, 6. 

29. What is the orthodox doctrine on this point ? 

That although the sufferings of Christ were not precisely, 
either in kind or degree, the same that justice would have de- 
manded of his people in person, yet he suffered precisely that 
kind and degree of evil which the infinitely righteous judge de- 
manded, as in his infinitely exalted person a satisfaction equiva- 
lent in the rigor of justice to the penalty denounced by the law 
upon all his people, for whom he died. 

His satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of his people, 
therefore, was perfect, 1st, intrinsically, and in the rigor of jus- 
tice ; 2d, as so satisfying the law that it demands no penal evils 
whatsoever of believers, all their sufferings being simply discipli- 
nary ; 3d, while it was perfect in securing the salvation of all his 
elect, it is perfect also in its sufficiency for all men, thus laying 
the foundation for the bona fide offer of an interest in his salva- 
tion to all who will accept it. 

This absolute perfection of the atonement is proved, 1st, by 
the infinite dignity of the sufferer, and the consequent infinite 
moral value of his sufferings. 

2d. Paul proves the insufficiency of the Old Testament sacri- 
fices from the necessity of their repetition, and establishes the 
fact that the one sacrifice of Christ is perfect, since it is never re- 
peated, Heb. ix., 25-28 ; x., 1-14. 

3d. Christ stood in the law place of his people, having assumed 
all their legal liabilities, but God set his seal publicly to his ap- 
probation of Christ's work as a perfect satisfaction to justice in 
behalf of his elect, in that he raised him from the dead and set 
him at his own right hand, 1 Cor., xv., 20-23 ; Phil, ii., 5-11 ; 
1 Pet., i., 3-5. 

4th. Our perfected redemption is always referred in Scripture 
to the death of Christ. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from 



312 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

all sin. Both the merit of works and the expiatory virtue of pen- 
ance are destitute of all Scriptural evidence, and are repugnant 
to all else the Scriptures teach. 

IV. The Extent of the Atonement. 

30. What is the precise point in dispute between the differ- 
ent parties in the Church on this subject ? 

All parties agree, 1st, that the atonement accomplished by 
the sufferings of Christ was sufficient in its moral value to satisfy 
justice for the sins of all men; and, 2d, that it was exactly 
adapted to meet the requisitions of justice, growing out of the 
legal relations of all men. The only debate concerns the pur- 
pose of Christ in dying, and of the Father in giving his Son 
to die. 

31. What is the Arminian view as to the design of God in 
the gift of his Son ? 

That he should die in the place and stead of all men as a sac- 
rificial oblation, by which satisfaction is made for the sins of every 
individual, so that they become remissible upon the terms of the 
evangelical covenant, i. e., upon the condition of faith. — Wat- 
son's Theo. Institutes, Part II., Chap. XXV. 

The design of God, then, was, 1st, that Christ should die for 
all men ; 2d, that by the satisfaction rendered by his death the 
salvation of all men should be made possible. 

32. What is the Scriptural doctrine on this subject ? 

Christ came in fulfillment of the eternal covenant of the 
Father with the Son. He assumed the federal and criminal rela- 
tions of his people to the law of works, and it was provided that 
his people should receive all the benefits of his merits. 

The design of G-od in the atonement, then, was — 

1st. That Christ should bear the penalty which justice de- 
nounced upon his own people. 

2d. That he should not merely make the salvation of those 
for whom he died possible, but that he should actually achieve it 
for them, and freely present it to them. 



EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 313 

The Arminian view, therefore, differs from the Calvinistic in 
two points. They maintain that Christ died, 1st, for the relief 
of all men ; 2d, to make salvation possible. We hold, on the 
other hand, that Christ died, 1st, for his elect ; 2d, to make their 
salvation certain. 

The Calvinist, of course, admits that it was a subordinate de- 
sign of Christ's death, as a means to the attainment of its chief 
design, that an interest in the satisfaction of Christ should be 
offered to all men, as available to all who believe. In this objec- 
tive sense the salvation of all men is rendered possible by the 
death of Christ, since none to whom the gospel is preached are 
excluded except by their own wicked refusal. — See Dr. Hodge's 
Com. on 1 Cor. viii., 11. 

33. How can the true doctrine as to the design of the atone- 
ment be proved from the nature of the atonement as above estab- 
lished ? 

If it is involved in the very nature of the atonement, as above 
proved, that all the legal responsibilities of those for whom he 
died were laid upon Christ ; if he suffered the very penalty 
which divine justice exacted of them, then it follows necessarily 
that all those for whom he died are absolved, since justice can not 
demand two perfect satisfactions, nor inflict the same penalty once 
upon the substitute and again upon the principal. 

34. What Scriptures teach that the love of God which was 
manifested in redemption was not mere benevolence but special 
love for his church ? 

John xvii., 6-19 ; xv., 13-16 ; x., 11 ; Rom. v., 8-10 ; viii., 
32, 33 ; Eph. v., 25-27 ; iii., 18, 19 ; 1 John iii., 16 ; iv., 9-10. 

The design of God must have been determined by his motive. 
If his motive was peculiar love to his own people then his de- 
sign must have been to secure their salvation, and not that of 
all men. 

35. What argument on this point may be derived from the 
doctrine of election ? 

As proved from Scripture above, in Chapter X., God, in his 
eternal decree, elected his own people to everlasting life, deter- 



314 



CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 



mining to leave all others to the just consequences of their own 
sins. Consequently he gave his son to die for these. He could 
not consistently give his Son to die for the purpose of saving the 
rest. 

36. By what argument may it be proved that the effect of 
Christ's satisfaction ivas not merely to render salvation possible, 
but that of his elect certain ? 

1st. Christ is infinitely wise, powerful, and unchangeable, 
consequently his design can never be frustrated. His design, 
therefore, may be measured by the effect. He designed to save 
those whom he does save. 

2d. The Scriptures prove that his purpose was actually to 
save those for whom he died, not merely to make their salvation 
possible, Matt, xviii., 11 ; Luke xix., 10 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal. i., 
4 ; iv., 5 ; 1 Tim. i., 15. Here his purpose is declared to be to 
redeem, to save, to deliver, to make righteous. " But to make 
salvation possible is not to save, to make holiness possible is not 
to purify, to open the door is not to bring us near to God." 

3d. The Scriptures declare that the' effect of Christ's death is 
reconciliation and justification, Eom. v., 10 ; Eph. ii., 16 ; remis- 
sion of sins, Eph. i., 7 ; peace, Eph. ii., 14 ; deliverance from 
wrath, 1 Thess. i., 10 ; from death, Heb. ii., 14 ; from the curse of 
the law, Gal. iii., 13 ; from sin, 1 Pet. i., 18. To deliver from 
sin and the law is not to make deliverance possible, but actually 
to deliver, and Christ could not have designed to deliver those 
whom he does not actually deliver.— Hodge's Essays. 

37. What connection do the Scriptures represent as subsist- 
ing between the work of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
and how may it be hence argued that he died specially for his 
own people ?. 

The Scriptures everywhere teach that the Holy Ghost was 
promised to Christ as the reward of his obedience and suffering, 
to be by him bestowed upon those for whom he obeyed and suf- 
fered. " Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law that we 
might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," Gal. iii., 
13, 14 ; Acts ii., 33 ; Titus iii., 5, 6 ; Eph. i., 3. Then it fol- 
lows that all for whom he died must receive that Spirit whose in- 



EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 315 

fluences were secured by his death. If the influences of the Holy 
Spirit are secured by his death , to teach, renew, and sanctify, it 
can not be denied that those, and only those thus taught, renewed, 
and sanctified, are those for whom he died/ 5 

38. How is this truth proved by the connection mutually sus- 
tained by the different parts of Christ's mediatorial work ? 

Christ came into this world, obeyed, suffered, died, appeared 
before God, intercedes and sends his Spirit as mediator. These 
are all essential parts of the same office. If he died for all, there- 
fore, he must perform every other mediatorial act for all, he must 
sanctify all, and intercede for all. All these are represented as 
united in the Scriptures, 1 John ii., 1, 2 ; Kom. viii., 34 ; iv., 
25 ; John xvii., 9. As these are all inseparably united in the 
execution, they must have been united in the design. 

39. What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning substitution, 
and how does that principle answer the question as for whom 
Christ died ? 

As shown above, (question 16,) the sacrificial victim under the 
Old Testament was substituted in the place of the offerer. It was 
life for life. Christ as an " offering for sin" was the substitute of 
those for whom he died. As second Adam, also, he died by cove- 
nant in the place of and in behalf of those for whom he died, 
2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal. iii., 13 ; Isa. liii., 5 ; Kom. v., 19 ; 1 Pet. iii., 
18. If so, then all for whom he died must be absolved, or else 
the substitution of Christ would be made of nought in each case 
wherein it fails. 

40. What is the Scripture doctrine as to the union of Christ 
with his people, and how does that doctrine determine the design 
of the atonement ? 

This union is declared to be, 1st, federal, 1 Cor. xv., 22 ; Kom. 
v., 19 ; 2d, vital and spiritual, John xiv., 20 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13, 
27 ; Gal. ii., 20. In consequence of this every gracious benefit 
the believer receives is said to be " in Christ/' and " with Christ." 
We die in his death, live in his life, and thus are united to him 
in all his mediatorial actions and career. " I am crucified with 
Christ/' " If one died for all then are all dead." "Now, if we be 



' 



316 CHKIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

dead with Christ we believe that we shall also live with him," 
Col. iii. ; 1-3 ; Eom. vi. ; 8-11 ; Gal. ii., 20 ; 2 Cor. v., 14 ; Eph. 
ii., 5, 6. Hence it follows, 1st, Christ could have designed to die 
only for those who were united with him in his death ; 2d, those 
who are united with him in his death must also "walk with him 
in newness of life," i. e., the federal union necessarily leads to the 
vital and spiritual union of Christ and his people. 

41. If Christ died only for his own people, on what ground 
does the general offer of the gospel rest ? 

"The Lord Jesus, in order to secure the salvation of his peo- 
ple, and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled the condition 
of the law or covenant under which they and all mankind were 
placed. These conditions were, (1.) perfect obedience ; (2.) satis- 
tion to divine justice. Christ's righteousness, therefore, consists 
of his obedience and death. That righteousness is precisely what 
the law demands of every sinner in order to justification before 
God. It is, therefore, in its nature adapted to all sinners who 
were under that law. Its nature is not altered by the fact 
that it was wrought out for a portion only of such sinners, or 
that it is secured to them by the covenant between the Father 
and the Son. What is necessary for the salvation of one man 
is necessary for the salvation of another and of all. It is also 
of infinite value, being the righteousness of the eternal Son 
of God, and therefore sufficient for all."— Hodge's Essays, pp. 
181, 182. 

A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all 
men, 1st. Because the satisfaction rendered to the law is sufficient 
for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the redemption 
of all. 3d. Because God designs that whosoever exercises faith 
in Christ shall be saved by him. The design of Christ's death 
being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the 
accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that sal- 
vation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their 
faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because 
there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation than his own 
most free and wicked will. 

42. How can the condemnation of men for the rejection of 



EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 317 

Christ be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ died for the 
elect only ? 

A salvation all-sufficient and exactly adapted to his necessities 
is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes ; and 
in every case it is his, if he believes ; and in no case does anything 
prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition. Evi- 
dently he is in no way concerned with the design of God in pro- 
viding that salvation beyond the assurance that God intends to 
give it to him if he believes. If a man is responsible for a bad 
heart, and the exercises thereof, he must be above all worthy of 
condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour. 

43. On what principles are those texts to be explained which 
speak of Christ's bearing the sins of the world, and of his dying 
for all ? 

These are such passages as Heb. ii., 9 ; 1 Cor. xv., 22 ; 1 
John ii., 2 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; John i., 29 ; iii., 16, 17 ; vi., 51. 
These terms, " world" and " all," are unquestionably used in very 
various degrees of latitude in the Scriptures. In many passages 
that latitude is evidently limited by the context, e. g., 1 Cor. xv., 
22 ; Kom. v., 18 ; viii., 32 ; John xii., 32 ; Eph. i., 10 ; Col. i., 
20 ; 2 Cor. v., 14, 15. In others the word " world" is opposed 
to the Jewish nation as a people of exclusive privileges, Eom. xi., 
12, 15 ; 1 John ii., 2. It is evident that statements as to the de- 
sign of Christ's death, involving such general terms, must be denned 
by the more definite ones above exhibited. Sometimes this gen- 
eral form of statement is used to give prominence to the fact that 
Christ, being a single victim, by one sacrifice atoned for so many. 
Compare Matt, xx., 28, with 1 Tim. ii., 6, and Heb. ix., 28. 
And although Christ did not die with the design of saving all, 
yet he did suffer the penalty of that law under which all were 
placed, and he does offer the righteousness thus wrought out 
to all. 

44. How are we to understand those passages which speak 
of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died ? 

Such passages are hypothetical, and truly indicate the nature 
and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are 



318 CHKIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 

the means which God uses, under the administration of his Spirit, 
to fulfill his purposes. God always deals with men, and thus 
fulfills his own designs through our agency hy addressing motives 
to our understandings and wills. As in the case of Paul's ship- 
wreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would 
perish except they abode in the ship, Acts xxvii., 24, 31. On 
the same principle, also, must be explained all such passages, as 
Heb. x., 26-30 ; 1 Cor. viii., 11, etc. See Dr. Hodge's Com. on 
1 Cor. viii., 11. 



C HAP T E R XXIII. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 

1. In what sense is Christ to continue a priest for ever ? 

This is asserted by Paul, Heb. vii., 3, 24, to contrast the 
priesthood of Christ with that of Aaron, which consisted of a 
succession of mortal men in their generations. His priesthood is 
perpetual, because, 1st, by one sacrifice for sin he hath for ever 
perfected them that are sanctified ; 2d, he ever liveth to make 
intercession for us ; 3d, his person and work as mediator will 
continue for all eternity the ground of our acceptance, and the 
medium of our communion with the Father. 

2. Did he intercede for his people on earth ? 

He did exercise this function of his priesthood on earth, Luke 
xxiii., 34 ; John xvii., 20 ; Heb. v., 7 ; the principal scene of its 
exercise, however, is his estate of exaltation in heaven. 

3. What is the view which the Scriptures present of the in- 
tercession of Christ ? 

1st. He appears in the presence of Grod for us, as the priestly 
advocate of his people, and presents his sacrifice, Heb. ix., 12, 24 ; 
Eev. v., 6. 

2d. He acts as our advocate with the Father, and on the basis 
of his own perfect work under the terms of the covenant of grace, 
claims as his own right, though as infinitely free grace to usward, 
the fulfillment of all the promises of his covenant, 1 John ii., 
1 ; John xvii., 24 ; xiv., 16 ; Acts ii., 33 ; Heb. vii., 25. 

3d. Because of his community of nature with his people, and 
his personal experience of the same sorrows and temptations 
which now afflict them he sympathizes with them, and watches 



320 THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 

and succors them in all their varying circumstances, and adapts 
his ceaseless intercessions to the entire current of their experiences, 
Heb ii., 17, 18 ; iv., 15, 16 ; Matt, xxviii., 20 ; xviii., 20. 

4th. He presents, and through his merits gains acceptance for 
the persons and services of his people, 1 Pet. ii., 5 ; Eph. i., 6 ; 
Kev. viii., 3, 4 ; Heb. iv., 14-16. 

4. For whom does he intercede ? 

Not for the world, but for his own people of every fold, and 
of all times, John x., 16 ; xvii., 9, 20. 

5. Show that his intercession is an essential part of his 
priestly work. 

It is absolutely essential, Heb. vii., 25, because it is necessary 
for him as mediator not merely to open up a way of possible sal- 
vation, but actually to accomplish the salvation of each of those 
given to him by the Father, and to furnish each with an " intro- 
duction" (ngoaaycjyrj) to the Father, John xvii., 12 ; Eph. ii., 18 ; 
iii., 12. The communion of his people with the Father will ever 
be sustained through him as mediatorial priest, Ps. ex., 4 ; Kev. 
vii., 17. 

6. What relation does the work of the Holy Ghost sustain to 
the intercession of Christ ? 

Christ is a royal priest, Zech. vi., 13. From the same throne, 
as king, he dispenses his Spirit to all the objects of his care, while 
as priest he intercedes for them. The Spirit acts for him, taking 
only of his things. They both act with one consent, Christ as 
principal, the Spirit as his agent. Chris fc intercedes for us, with- 
out us, as our advocate in heaven, according to the provisions of 
the eternal covenant. The Holy Grhost works upon our minds 
and hearts, enlightening and quickening, and thus determining 
our desires " according to the will of God," as our advocate 
within us. The work of the one is complementary to that of the 
other, and together they form a complete whole, Eom. viii., 26, 
27 ; John xiv., 26. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

1. How does the sovereignty of Christ as Mediator differ from 
his sovereignty as God ? 

His sovereignty as God is essential to his nature, underived, 
absolute, eternal and unchangeable. 

His sovereignty as mediatorial King is derived, given to him 
by his Father as the reward of his obedience and suffering ; it is 
special, having respect to the salvation of his own people and the 
administration of the provisions of the covenant of grace ; and it 
attaches, not to his divine nature as such, but to his person as 
God-man, occupying the office of Mediator. 

2. What is the extent of Christ's mediatorial kingdom, and 
what are the different aspects ivhich it presents ? 

Christ's mediatorial authority embraces the universe, Matt, 
xxviii., 18 ; Phil, ii., 9-11 ; Eph. i., 17-23. It presents two 
great aspects. 1st. In its general administration as embracing 
the universe as a whole. 2d. In its special administration as 
embracing the church. 

3. What are the objects of his mediatorial authority over the 
universe, and how is it administered $ 

Its object is to accomplish the salvation of his church in the 
execution of all the provisions of the covenant of grace, which de- 
volves upon him as Mediator, Eph. i., 23. As the universe con- 
stitutes one physical and moral system, it was necessary that his 
headship as Mediator should extend to the whole, in order to 
cause all things to work together for good to his people, Kom.. 
viii., 28 ; to establish a kingdom for them, Luke xxii. ; 29 ; John 

21 



322 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL KING. 

xiv., 2 ; to reduce to subjection all his enemies, 1 Cor. xv., 25 ; 
Heb. x., 13 ; and in order that all should worship him, Heb. i., 
6 ; Kev. v., 9-13. His general mediatorial government of the 
universe is administered, 1st, providentially ; 2d, judicially, John 
v., 22, 27 ; ix., 39 ; 2 Cor. v., 10. 

4. How was the kingship of Christ foretold in the Old Testa- 
ment ? 

1st. Typically in the persons of the theocratic princes, Jer. 
xxiii., 5 ; Is. ix., 7. 2d. By explicit prediction, Dan. ii., 44 ; 
Ps. ii., 6 ; Is. ix., 6. 

5. What are the various senses in which the phrases " king- 
dom of God" and " kingdom of heaven" are used in the New 
Testament ? 

They signify the different aspects of that one spiritual reign, 
also called the " Kingdom of Christ." 1st. For true religion, 
or the reign of Christ in the heart, Luke xii., 31 ; xvii., 21 ; 
Mark x., 15 ; Eom. xiv., 17. 2d. For the visible church under 
the new dispensation see parables of the Sower, Tares, etc., Matt. 
xiii. ; iv., 17 ; Mark i., 15. 3d. The perfected church in glory, 
Luke, xiii., 29 ; 2 Pet. i., 11. 

6. What is the nature of Christ's kingly administration of 
the affairs of his own people, i. e., of his kingdom as distinct 
from the universe ? 

1st. It is providential. He administers his providential gov- 
ernment over the universe with the design of accomplishing there- 
by the support, defence, enrichment and glorification of his people. 
2d. It is accomplished by the dispensation of his Spirit effectually 
calling, sanctifying, comforting, preserving, raising, and glorifying 
his people, John xv., 26 ; Acts ii., 33-36. 3d. It is accomplished 
by his prescribing the form, and order, and functions of his church, 
the officers who are to act as the organs of those functions, and 
the laws which they are to administer, Matt, xxviii., 18, 19, 
20 ; Eph. iv., 8, 11. 4th. By designating the persons who are 
successively to assume those offices, by means of a spiritual call, 
expressed in the witness of the Spirit, the leadings of providence, 



HIS KINGDOM SPIRITUAL. 323 

and the call of the brethren, Acts i., 23, 24 ; vi., 5 ; xiii., 2, 3 ; 
xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. I, 12 ; iv. 5 14. 

Under this administration this kingdom presents two aspects, 
1st, as militant, Eph. vi., 11-16 ; 2d, as glorified, Kev. iii., 21. 
And accordingly Christ presents himself as fulfilling, in his ad- 
ministration of the affairs of his kingdom, the functions of a great 
Captain, Rev. xix., 11, 16, and of a sovereign Prince reigning 
from a throne, Rev. xxi., 5, 22, 23. 

The throne upon which he sits and from which he reigns is 
presented in three different aspects, corresponding to the different 
relations he sustains to his people and the world ; as a throne of 
grace, Heb. iv., 16 ; a throne of judgment, Rev. xx., 11-15 : 
and a throne of glory, compare Rev. iv., 2-5 with Rev. v., 6. 

7. In ivhat sense is Clwist's kingdom spiritual ? 

1st. The King is a spiritual and not an earthly sovereign, 
Matt, xx., 28 ; John xviii., 36. 2d. His throne is at the right 
hand of God, Acts ii., 33. 3d. His sceptre is spiritual, Is. liii., 
1 ; Ps. ex., 2. 4th. The citizens of his kingdom are spiritual 
men, Phil, iii., 20 ; Eph. ii., 19. 5th. The mode in which he ad- 
ministers his government is spiritual, Zech. iv., 6, 7. 6th. His 
laws are spiritual, John iv., 24. 7th. The blessings and the pen- 
alties of his kingdom are spiritual, 1 Cor. v., 4-11 ; 2 Cor. x., 
4 ; Eph. i., 3-8 ; 2 Tim. iv., 2 ; Tit. ii., 15. 

8. What is the extent of the powers which Christ has vested 
in Ms visible church $ 

In respect to the civil magistrate the church is absolutely in- 
dependent. In subjection to the supreme authority of Christ her 
head the powers of the church are solely, 1st, declarative, i. e., to 
expound the Scriptures, which are the perfect rule of faith and 
practice, and thus to witness to and promulgate the truth in creeds 
and confessions, by the pulpit and the press. And, 2d, minis- 
terial, i. e., to organize herself according to the pattern furnished in 
the "Word, and then to administer, through the proper officers, the 
sacraments, and those laws and that discipline prescribed by the 
Master, and to make provision for the proclamation of the gospel 
of the kingdom to every creature, Is. viii., 20 ; Deut. iv., 2 ; Matt, 
xxviii., 18-20 ; Heb. xiii., 17 ; 1 Pet, ii., 4, 



324 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL KING. 

9. What are the conditions of admission into Christ's king- 
dom ? 

Simply practical recognition of the authority of the sovereign. 
As the sovereign and the entire method of his administration are 
spiritual, it is plain that his authority must be understood and 
embraced practically, according to its spiritual nature. This is 
that spiritual faith which involves spiritual illumination, John 
hi., 3, 5 ; L, 12 ; 1 Cor. xii., 3. 

10. What is the Romish doctrine of the relation of the Church 
to the State ? 

According to the strictly logical Komish doctrine, the state is 
only one phase of the church. The whole nation being in all its 
members a portion of the church universal, the civil organization 
is comprehended within the church for special subordinate ends, 
and is responsible to the church for the exercise of all the au- 
thority delegated to it. 

11. What is the Erastian doctrine as to the relation of the 
Church to the State ? 

This doctrine, named from Erastus, a physician resident in 
Heidelberg in the sixteenth century, is precisely contrary to that 
of the Komanists, i. e., it regards the church as only one phase of 
the state. The state, being a divine institution, designed to pro- 
vide for all the wants of men, spiritual as well as temporal, is 
consequently charged with the duty of providing for the dissemi- 
nation of pure doctrine, and for the proper administration of the 
sacraments, and of discipline. It is the duty of the state, there- 
fore, to support the church, to appoint its officers, to define its 
laws, and to superintend its administration. 

12. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed Church on 
this point ? 

That the church and the state are both divine institutions, 
having different objects, and in every respect independent of each 
other. The members and officers of the church are, as men, 
members of the state, and ought to be good citizens ; and the 
members and officers of the state, if Christians, are members of 
the church, and as such subject to her laws. But neither the offi- 



CHURCH AND STATE. 325 

cers nor the laws of either have any authority within the sphere 
of the other. 

13. What is the idea and design of the State ? 

Civil government is a divine institution designed to protect 
men in the enjoyment of their civil rights. It has, therefore, de- 
rived from God authority to define those rights touching all ques- 
tions of person and property, and to provide for their vindication, 
to regulate intercourse, and to provide all means necessary for its 
own preservation. 

14. What is the design of the visible Church ? 

It is a divine institution designed to secure instrumentally the 
salvation of men. To that end it is specially designed — 

1st. To bring men to a knowledge of the truth. 

2d. To secure their obedience to the truth, and to exercise 
their graces by the public confession of Christ, the fellowship 
of the brethren, and the administration of the ordinances and 
discipline. 

3d. To constitute the visible witness and prophetic type of the 
church invisible and spiritual. 

15. What are the duties of the State with regard to the 
Church ? 

The State, of course, sustains precisely the same relation to 
the persons of church members and officers, and to the public 
property of the church, that she does to all other persons and 
property subject to her jurisdiction and under her protection. 
Otherwise the State neither possesses rights nor owes duties to 
the church ; yet, as the Scriptures and the power which the State 
administers are alike directly from God, and since each individual, 
legislative, judicial, and executive officer of the State is bound to 
receive every word of Scripture as God's will, it follows necessa- 
rily that all the deliverances of Scripture upon all the subjects 
which fall within the jurisdiction of the State, ought, by a divine 
right, to be acknowledged and obeyed as an inviolable element in 
the supreme law of every State. For instance, no laws can be right 
upon the great subjects of marriage, oaths, the Sabbath day, the 



326 



MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 





duties and the rights of slaves, etc., which do not express the prin- 
ciples which God has revealed in his word upon those subjects. 
The church, however, hence acquires no rights to expound this 
law of God authoritatively for the guidance of the State. All 
her teaching must be within her own sphere, and her influence 
upon the State can only be indirect, through the citizens of the 
State, who have been enlightened not as citizens, but as members 
of the congregation. 

16. What are the duties of the Church with regard to the 

State ? 

1st. The church owes obedience to the State in the exercise 
of her lawful authority over the public property of the church. 
2d. She is bound to use all the lawful means in her possession for 
carrying the gospel to all the members of the State. Beyond this 
the church owes no duty to the State whatever. 

17. In what sense is Christ to return his kingdom to his Fa- 
ther, and in what sense will his mediatorial headship continue 
for ever ? 

The sum of what is revealed to us upon this subject appears 
to be, that after the complete glorification of his people, and the 
destruction of his enemies, Christ will demit his mediatorial au- 
thority over the universe which he has administered as God-man, 
in order that the Godhead absolute may be immediately all in all 
to the creature, 1 Cor. xv., 24-28. But his mediatorial headship 
over his own people, including the offices of prophet, priest, and 
king, shall continue for ever. This is certain, 1st. Because he is 
a priest forever, and of his kingdom there is no end, Ps. ex., 4 ; 
Dan. vii., 14 ; Luke i., 33. 2d. The personal union between his 
divine and human nature is to continue for ever. 3d. As Media- 
tor he is the head of the church, which is his fullness, and the 
consummation of the marriage of the Lamb is the beginning of 
heaven, Kev. xix., 7 ; xxi., 2, 9. 4th. As " a Lamb that had 
been slain," he is represented in heaven on the throne as ever 
more the temple and the light of the city, and as feeding his peo- 
ple, and leading them to fountains of living waters, Be v. v., 6 ; 
vii., 17 ; xxi., 22, 23. 



HIS ESTATE OF HUMILIATION. 327 

CHRIST EXECUTED HIS OFFICE OF MEDIATOR BOTH IN HIS ESTATE 
OF HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION. 

18. Wherein does Christ's humiliation consist ? 

See Larger Catechism, questions 46-50 ; Shorter Catechism, 
question 27. 

19. In what sense was Christ made under the law, and how 
was that subjection an act of humiliation ? 

In his incarnation Christ was born precisely into the law 
place of his people, and sustained to the law precisely that relation 
which they did. He was born under the law, then, 1st, as a rule 
of duty ; 2d, as a covenant of life ; 3d, as a broken covenant, 
whose curse was already incurred. His voluntary assumption of 
such a position was preeminently an act of humiliation : 1st. 
His assumption of a human nature was voluntary, 2d. After his 
incarnation his person remained divine, and the claims of law ter- 
minating upon persons, and not upon natures, his submission to 
those claims was purely gratuitous. 3d. This condescension is 
immeasurably heightened by the fact that he accepted the curse 
of the law as of a covenant of life already broken, Gal. iii., 10-13; 
iv., 4, 5. 

20. In what sense did Christ undergo the curse of the law, 
and how was that possible for God's well-beloved Son ? 

In his own person, absolutely considered, Christ is often de- 
clared by the Father to be his " beloved Son, with whom he was 
well pleased," Matt, iii., 17 ; 2 Pet. i., 17 ; and he always did 
that which pleased Grod, John viii., 29. But in his office as me- 
diator he had assumed our place, and undertaken to bear the 
guilt of o.ur sin. The wrath of Grod, then, which Christ bore, 
was the infinite displeasure of Grod against our sins, which dis- 
pleasure terminated upon Christ's person vicariously, because of 
the iniquity of us all which was laid upon him, Matt, xxvi., 38 ; 
xxvii., 46 ; Luke xxii., 44. 

21. What are the different interpretations of the phrase in the 
apostles' creed, "he descended into hell ?" 

Our standards teach that the phrase in the creed, which is 



328 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

borrowed from Ps. xvi., 10 ; and Acts ii., 27, means Christ's con- 
tinuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death 
till the third day, Larger Cat., question 50. <u(%, translated hell, 
appears to be used in its etymological and most general sense for 
the invisible state of the dead, presenting no definite idea of 
place, but rather of a state marked, 1st, as invisible, i. e., to the 
living ; 2d, by separation of soul and body. Compare Acts ii., 
24-28 ; ii., 31 ; with Ps. xvi., 8-11. 

The Komanists interpret " hell" in this phrase as signifying 
the "Limbus Patruin," or that region of the invisible world " into 
which the souls of the just who died before Christ were received, 
and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, and supported 
by the blessed-hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. 
To liberate these souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham, were ex- 
pecting the Saviour Christ, the Lord descended into hell/' — Cate- 
chism of Coun. of Trent, Part L, Art. 5th. 

Some have held the revolting opinion that Christ actually de- 
scended into the place of torments to triumph over the powers of 
darkness, which is evidently inconsistent with Luke xxiii., 43, 46. 

22. What is the true meaning of 1 Pet. iii., 19-21 ? 

This passage is very obscure. The Komish interpretation is 
shown in the answer to the preceding question, i. e., that Christ 
went to the Limbus Patrum and preached the gospel to those 
imprisoned spirits that were awaiting his advent. 

The common Protestant interpretation is that Christ was put 
to death in the body, but quickened, or restored to life by the 
Spirit, by which Spirit, inspiring Noah as a preacher of righteous- 
ness, Christ many centuries previously had descended from 
heaven, and preached to the men of that generation, who in their 
sin and unbelief were the " spirits in prison." Only eight persons 
believed and were saved ; therefore, Christian professors and 
teachers ought not to faint because of the unbelief of mankind 
now. 

Another interpretation, suggested by Archbishop Leighton in 
a note, as his last opinion, and expounded at large by the late Dr. 
John Brown, of Edinburgh, is, that Christ dying in the body as 
a vicarious sacrifice is quickened in the spirit, *. e., spiritually 
quickened, manifested as a complete Saviour in a higher degree 



HIS ESTATE OF EXALTATION. 329 

than was possible before, as a grain of wheat dying he began to 
bear much fruit ; and thus quickened, he now, through the inspi- 
ration of his Spirit, preached to " spirits in prison," *. e., prison- 
ers of sin and Satan, just as he had before done, though with less 
power, through Noah and all the prophets, when the spirits were 
disobedient ; under the ministry of Noah only eight souls being 
saved ; but since Christ was quickened in spirit, i. e., manifested 
as a complete Saviour, multitudes believed. 

23. Wherein does Christ's exaltation consist? 
Shorter Cat., question 28, Larger Cat., questions 51-54. 

24. In what sense was it possible for the coequal Son of God 
to be exalted? 

As the coequal Son of God this was impossible, yet his person 
as God-man was capable of exaltation in several respects. 

1st. Through the union of the divine and human natures, the 
outward manifestations of the glory of his person had been veiled 
from the eyes of creatures. 2d. As Mediator he occupied officially 
a position inferior to the Father, condescending to occupy the 
place of sinners. He had been inconceivably humbled, and, as a 
reward consequent upon his voluntary self-humiliation, the 
Father highly exalted him, Phil, ii., 8, 9 ; Heb. xii., 2 ; Eev. 
v., 6. 3d. His human soul and body were inconceivably exalted, 
Matt, xvii., 2 ; Eev. i., 12-16 ; xx., 11. 

25. Wliat are the various sources of proof by which the resur- 
rection of Christ is established f 

1st. The Old Testament predicted it. Compare Ps. xvi., 10, 
and Acts ii., 24-31. All the other predictions concerning the 
Messiah were fulfilled in Christ, therefore this. 

2d. Christ predicted it, and therefore, if he was a true prophet, 
he must have risen, Matt, xx., 19 ; John x, 18. 

3d. The event, his extraordinary origin and character consid- 
ered, is not antecedently improbable. 

4th. The testimony of the eleven apostles. These men are 
proved by their writings to have been good, intelligent and seri- 
ous, and they each had every opportunity of ascertaining the fact, 
and they sealed their sincerity with their blood, Acts i., 3. 



330 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

5th. The separate testimony of Paul, who, as one born out 
of due time, saw his risen Lord, and derived his revelation and 
commission from him in person, 1 Cor. xv., 8 ; Gal. i., 12 ; Acts 
ix., 3-8. 

6th. He was seen by five hundred brethren at once, to whom 
Paul appeals, Cor. xv., 6. 

7th. The change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first day 
of the week, is a monument of the concurrent testimony of the 
whole of the first generation of Christians, to the fact that they 
believed that Christ rose from the dead. 

8th. The miracles wrought by the apostles were God's seals 
to their testimony that he had raised Christ, Heb. ii., 4. 

9th. The accompanying witness of the Holy Ghost, honoring 
the apostles' doctrine and ministry not merely by miraculous 
gifts, but by his sanctifying, elevating and consoling power, Acts 
v., 32.— Dr. Hodge. 

26. By whose power did Christ rise from the dead f 

The Scriptures ascribe his resurrection- 
ist. To himself, John ii., 19 ; x., 17. 
2d. To the Father, Acts xiii., 33 ; Kom. x., 9 ; Eph. i., 20. 
This is reconciled upon the principle that all acts of divine 
power, terminating upon objects external to the Godhead, may be 
attributed to either of the divine persons, or to the Godhead abso- 
lutely, John v., 17-19. 

27. On what ground does the apostle declare that our faith is 
vain if Christ be not risen, (1 Cor. xv., 14) ? 

1st. If Christ be risen indeed, then he is the true Messiah, 
and all the prophecies of both dispensations have in that fact a 
pledge of their fulfillment. If he has not risen, then are they all 
false. 

2d. The resurrection proved him to be the Son of God, Eom. 
i., 4, for (1.) he rose by his own power, (2.) it authenticated all 
his claims with respect to himself. 

3d. In the resurrection of Christ the Father publicly declared 
his approbation and acceptance of Christ's work as surety of his 
people, Horn. iv. ? 25. 



HIS ESTATE OF EXALTATION. 331 

4th. If Christ has risen, we have an advocate with the Father, 
Kom. viii., 34 ; Heb. ix., 11, 12, 24. 

5th. If Christ be raised, we have assurance of eternal life ; if 
he lives, we shall live also, John xiv., 19 ; 1 Pet. i., 3-5. 

6th. Owing to the union between Christ and his members, 
which is both federal and spiritual, his resurrection secures ours, 
(1.) because, as we died in Adam, so we must live in Christ, 1 
Cor. xv., 21, 22 ; (2.) because of his Spirit, that dwelleth in us, 
Rom. viii., 11 ; 1 Cor. vi., 15 ; 1 Thess. iv., 14. 

7th. Christ's resurrection illustrates and determines the na- 
ture of our resurrection as well as secures it, 1 Cor. xv., 49 ; Phil, 
iii., 21 ; 1 John, iii., 2. — Dr. Hodge. 

28. When, at what place, and in whose presence did Christ 
ascend ? 

He ascended forty days after his resurrection, from a portion 
of the Mount of Olives, near to the village of Bethany, in the 
presence of the eleven apostles, and possibly of other disciples, 
while he was in the act of blessing them, and while they beheld 
him, and were looking steadfastly. Luke says, moreover, that 
there were two glorified men present, who are conjectured by 
Professor J. A. Alexander to have been Moses and Elijah. He 
was attended also with angels celebrating his victory over sin, and 
his exaltation to his mediatorial throne, Luke xxiv., 50, 51 ; Mark 
xvi., 19 ; Acts i., 9-11 ; Eph. iv., 8 ; Col. ii., 13-15 ; Ps. xxiv., 
7-10 ; lxviii., 18. 

29. What are the different opinions as to the nature of Christ's 
ascension ? 

Those who, as the Lutherans, believe that Christ's body is 
omnipresent to his church, of course, maintain that his ascension 
consisted not in any local change, but in the withdrawal of his 
former sensible intercourse with his disciples. 

It is certain, however, that his human soul and body did ac- 
tually pass up from earth to the abode of the blessed, and that 
his entire person, as the Grod-man, was gloriously exalted. He 
ascended as Mediator, triumphing over his enemies, and giving gifts 
to his friends, Eph. iv., 8-12 ; to complete his mediatorial work, 
John xiv., 2, 3 ; as the Forerunner of his people, Heb. vi. 20 ; and 



332 



THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 




to fill the universe with the manifestations of his glory and power, 
Eph., iv. ; 10. 

30. What is included in Christ's sitting at the right hand of 
the Father ? 

See Ps. ex., 1 ; Mark xvi., 19 ; Eom. viii., 34 ; Eph. i. ; 20, 
22 ; Col. iii., 1 ; Heb. i., 3, 4 ; x., 12 ; 1 Pet. iii., 22. 

This language is evidently figurative, yet it very expressively 
sets forth the supreme glorification of Christ in heaven. It pre- 
sents him as the G-od-man, and in his office as Mediator exalted to 
supreme and universal glory, felicity and power over all princi- 
palities and powers, and every name that is named, Heb. ii., 9 ; 
Ps. xvi., 11 ; Matt, xxvi., 64 ; Dan. vii., 13, 14 ; Phil, ii., 9, 11 ; 
John v., 22 ; Kev. v., 6. Thus publicly assuming his throne as 
mediatorial Priest and King over the universe for the benefit of 
his church. 

Seated upon that throne he, during the present dis- 
pensation, as Mediator, effectually applies to his people, 
through his spirit, that salvation which he had previ- 
ously achieved for them in his estate of humiliation. 






CHAPTER XXV. 

EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

1. What is the New Testament usage of the words tcaXhv (to 
call), KXrjaig (calling), and xXwrog (the called) ? 

Kake.iv is used in the sense, 1st, of calling with the voice, John 
x., 3 ; Mark i., 20 ; 2d, of calling forth, to summon authorita- 
tively, Acts iv., 18 ; xxiv., ii. ; 3d, of inviting, Matt, xxii., 3 ; 
ix., 13 ; 1 Tim. vi., 12. Many are called, hut few chosen. 4th. 
Of the effectual call of the Spirit, Eom. viii., 28-30 ; 1 Pet. ii., 
9 ; v., 10. 5th. Of an appointment to office, Heb. v., 4. 6th. 
In the sense of naming, Matt, i., 21 ; nXr\ai(; occurs eleven times 
in the New Testament, in each instance it signifies the effectual 
call of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of 1 Cor. vii., 20, where 
it is used as synonymous with business or trade. — See Rom. xi., 
29 ; 1 Cor. i., 26, etc., etc. — Robinson's Lex. 

K?^rjr6g occurs ten times in the New Testament. It is used to 
signify, 1st, those appointed to any office, Rom. i., 1. 2d. Those 
who receive the external call of the word, Matt, xx., 16. 3d. 
The effectually called, Rom. i., 7 ; viii., 28 ; 1 Cor. i., 2, 24 ; 
Jude i.; Rev. xvii., 14. 

The very word enit\r}oia (church) designating the company of 
the faithful, the heirs of all the promises, signifies, etymologically, 
the company called forth, the body constituted by "the calling." 

2. What is included in the external call ? 

1st. A declaration of the plan of salvation. 2d. A declara- 
tion of duty on the part of the sinner to repent and believe. 3d. 
A declaration of the motives which ought to influence the sin- 
ner's mind, such as fear of hope, remorse or gratitude. 4th, A 




334 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

promise of acceptance in the case of all those who comply with 
the conditions. — Dr. Hodge. 

3. How can it he proved that the external call to salvation is 
made only through the word of God ? 

The law of Grod, as impressed upon the moral constitution of 
man, is natural, and inseparable from man as a moral responsible 
agent, Kom. i., 19, 20 ; ii., 14, 15. But the gospel is no part of 
that natural law. It is of grace, not of nature, and it can be 
made known to us only by a special and supernatural revelation. 

This is further evident, 1st, because the Scriptures declare 
that a knowledge of the word is essential to salvation, Kom. x., 
14-17 ; and, 2d, because they also declare that those who neglect 
the word, either written or preached, are guilty of the eminent 
sin of rejecting all possibility of salvation, Matt, xi., 21, 22 ; 
Heb. ii., 3. 

4. On what principle is this external call addressed equally to 
the non-elect as well as to the elect ? 

That it is addressed indiscriminately to both classes is proved, 
1st. From the express declaration of Scripture, Matt, xxii., 14. 
2d. The command to preach the gospel to eveiy creature, Mark 
xvi., 15. 3d. The promise to every one who accepts it, Eev. xxii., 
17. 4th. The awful judgment pronounced upon those who reject 
it, John hi., 19 ; xvi., 9. 

It is addressed to the non-elect equally with the elect, because 
it is equally their duty and interest to accept the gospel, because 
the provisions of salvation are equally suited to their case, and 
abundantly sufficient for all, and because G-od intends that its 
benefits shall actually accrue to every one who accepts it. 

5. Hoio can it be proved that there is an internal spiritual 
call distinct from an external one $ 

1st. From those passages which distinguish the Spirit's influ- 
ence from that of the word, John vi., 45, 64, 65 ; 1 Thes. i., 5, 
6. 2d. Those passages which teach that the Spirit's influence is 
necessary to the reception of the truth, Eph. i., 17. 3d. Those 
that refer all good in man to God, Phil, ii., 13 ; Eph. ii., 8 ; 2 



APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 335 

Tim., ii., 25, e. g. } faith and repentance. 4th. The Scripture 
distinguishes between the two calls ; of the subjects of the one it 
is said "many are called and few are chosen/' of the subjects of 
the other it is said, " whom he called them he also justified." Of 
the one he says, " Because I have called, and ye have refused," 
Prov. i., 24. Of the other he says, " Every man therefore who hath 
heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me," John vi., 
45. 5th. There is an absolute necessity for such an internal, 
spiritual call, man by nature is "blind" and "dead" in tres- 
passes and sins, 1 Cor. ii., 14 ; 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; Eph. ii., 1. 

6. What is the Pelagian view of the internal call f 

Pelagians deny original sin, and maintain that right and 
wrong are qualities attaching only to executive acts of the will. 
They therefore assert, 1st. The full ability of the free will of man 
as much to cease from sin at any time as to continue in its prac- 
tice. 2d. That the Holy Spirit produces no inward change in the 
heart of the subject, except as he is the author of the Scriptures, 
and as the Scriptures present moral truths and motives, which of 
their own nature exert a moral influence upon the soul. 

7. What is the Semi-Pelagian view f 

These maintain that grace is necessary to enable a man suc- 
cessfully to return unto God and live. Yet that from the very 
nature of the human will man must first of himself desire to be 
free from sin, and to choose God as his chief good, when he may 
expect God's aid in carrying his desires into effect. 

8. What is the Arminian view f 

The Arminians admit the doctrine of man's total depravity, 
and that in consequence thereof man is utterly unable to do any- 
thing aright in the unaided exercise of his natural faculties. 
Nevertheless, as Christ died equally for every man, sufficient grace, 
enabling its subject to do all that is required of him, is granted to 
all. Which sufficient grace becomes efficient only when it is co- 
operated with and improved by the sinner. — Apol. Conf. Ee- 
monstr., p. 162, b.; Limborch, Theo. Christ., 4, 12, 8. 



336 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

9. What is the doctrine on this subject taught by the symbols 
of the Lutheran Church ? 

The Lutherans agree entirely with the Calvinistic view on the 
point of efficacious grace, although they are logically inconsistent 
in denying the doctrine of election. — Additions to Luther's Small 
Catechism, III. Order of Salvation, questions 74-88. 

10. What is the Synergistic view of this point ? 

At the call of Maurice, the new elector of Saxony, the divines 
of Wittemhurg and Leipsic assembled at Leipsic, A. D. 1548, in 
conference, and on that occasion the Synergistic controversy arose. 
The term signifies cooperation. The Synergists were Lutheran 
theologians, who departed from their own system on this one sub- 
ject, and adopted the position of the Arminians. Melanch- 
thon used these words at that conference : " God so draws and 
converts adults that some agency of their will accompanies his 
influences/' 

11. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches 
as to the internal call f 

That it is an exercise of divine power upon the soul, imme- 
diate, spiritual, and supernatural, communicating a new spiritual 
life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity possible. 
That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and 
simply the sinner's own acts ; but as such are possible to him 
only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of 
his faculties by the recreative power of Grod. — See Conf. of Faith, 
Chap. X., Sections 1 and 2. 

12. What diversity of opinion prevails among the Romanists 
upon this subject f 

The disciples of Augustin in that church, of whom the Jan- 
senists were the most prominent, are orthodox, but these have 
been almost universally overthrown, and supplanted by their ene- 
mies the Jesuits, who are Semi-Pelagians. The Council of Trent 
attempted to satify both parties. — Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can. 
3 and 4. The doctrines of Quesnel, who advocated the truth on 
this subject, were condemned in the Bull " Unigenitus," A. D. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 337 

1713. Bellarmine taught that the same grace is given to every 
man, which, by the event only, is proved practically congruous to 
the nature of one man, and therefore in his case efficacious, and 
incongruous to the nature of another, and therefore in his case 
ineffectual. 

13. What is meant by " common grace" and how may it be 
shown that the Spirit does operate upon the minds of those who 
are not renewed in heart f 

" Common grace" is the restraining and persuading influences 
of the Holy Spirit acting only through the truth revealed in the 
gospel, or through the natural light of reason and of conscience, 
heightening the natural moral effect of such truth upon the un- 
derstanding, conscience, and heart. It involves no change of 
heart, hut simply an enhancement of the natural powers of the 
truth, a restraint of the evil passions, and an increase of the 
natural emotions in view of sin, duty, and self-interest. 

That God does so operate upon the hearts of the unregenerate 
is proved, 1st, from Scripture, Gren. vi, 3 ; Acts vii., 51 ; Heb. 
x., 29 ; 2d, from universal experience and observation. 

14. Hoio does common differ from efficacious grace ? 

1st. As to its subjects. All men are more or less the subjects 
of the one ; only the elect are subjects of the other, Kom. viii., 30; 
xi., 7 ; 2 Thes. h\, 13. 

2d. As to its nature. Common grace is only mediate, through 
the truth, and it is merely moral, heightening the moral influence 
natural to the truth, and exciting only the natural powers of 
the soul, both rational and moral. But efficacious grace is im- 
mediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul 
by the immediate energy of the Holy Grhost, and since it implants 
a new spiritual life, and a capacity for a new mode of exercising 
the natural faculties. 

3d. As to its effects. The effects of common grace are super- 
ficial and transient, modifying the action, but not changing the 
nature, and its influence is always more or less consciously re- 
sisted, as opposed to the prevailing dispositions of the soul. But 
efficacious grace, since it acts not upon but in the will itself, 
changing the governing desires, and giving a new direction to the 

22 



338 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 



active powers of the soul, is neither resistible nor irresistible, but 
most free, spontaneous, and yet most certainly effectual. 

15. How can it be proved that this efficacious grace is con- 
fined to the elect t 

1st. The Scriptures represent the elect as the called, and the 
called as the elect, Kom. viii., 28, 30 ; Kev. xvii., 14. 2d. This 
effectual calling is said to be based upon the decree of election, 2 
Thes. ii., 13, 14 ; 2 Tim. i., 9, 10. 3d. Sanctification, justifica- 
tion, and all the temporal and eternal benefits of union with 
Christ are declared to be the effects of effectual calling, 1 Cor. i., 
2 ; Eph. ii., 5 ; Kom. viii., 30. 

16. Prove that it is given on account of Christ. 

1st. All spiritual blessings are given on account of Christ, 
Eph. i., 3 ; Titus iii., 5, 6. 2d. The Scriptures specifically de- 
clare that we are called in Christ, Rom. viii., 2 ; Eph. ii., 4-6 ; 
2 Tim. i., 9. 

17. What is meant by saying that this divine influence is im- 
mediate and supernatural ? 

It is meant, 1st, to deny, (1.) that it consists simply in the 
moral influence of the truth ; (2. ) that it consists simply in the 
moral influence of the Spirit, heightening the moral influence of 
the truth as objectively presented ; (3.) that it excites the mere 
natural powers of the soul. It is meant, 2d, to affirm, (1.) that 
the Holy Spirit acts immediately upon the soul from within ; 
(2.) that the Holy Spirit, by an exercise of recreative power, im- 
plants a new moral nature or principle of action. 

18. What arguments go to show that there is an immediate 
influence of the Spirit on the soul, besides that which is exerted 
through the truth ? 

1st. The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of 
the word, John vi., 45, 64, 65 ; Rom. xv., 13 ; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15 ; 
1 Thess. L, 5, 6. 

2d. A divine influence is declared to be necessary to the recep- 
tion of the truth, Ps. cxix., 18 ; Acts xvi., 14 ; Eph. i., 17. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 339 

3d. Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to 
God, Phil, ii., 13 ; 2 Thess. i., 11 ; Heb. xiii., 21. 

4th. The gift of the Spirit is distinguished from the gift of the 
word, John xiv., 16 ; 1 Cor. iii., 16 ; vi., 19 ; Eph. iv., 30. 

5th. The nature of this influence is evidently different from 
that effected by the truth, Eph. i., 19 ; iii., 7. And the effect is 
called a "new creation/' "new birth/' etc., etc. 

6th. Man by nature is dead in sin, and needs such a direct 
intervention of supernatural power. — Turettin, Theo. Instits., L. 
XV., Quaestio 4. 

19. What are the different reasons assigned for calling this 
grace efficacious ? 

1st. Most of the Jesuits, and the Arminians, holding that all 
men receive sufficient grace to enable them to obey the gospel if 
they will, maintain that this grace becomes efficacious when it is 
cooperated with by the will of the individual, and in any case is 
proved to be such only by the event. 

2d. Bellarmine, and others, maintain that the same grace 
given to all is congruous to the moral nature of one man, and 
in that case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature of another, 
and in his case ineffectual. 

3d. Some Eomanists have maintained what is called the doc- 
trine of cumulative influence. The consent of the soul is secured 
by the suasive influence of the spirit, rendered effectual by con- 
stant repetition and long continuance. 

4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the efficacy of this grace 
is inherent in its very nature, because it is the exercise of the 
mighty power of G-od in the execution of his eternal and un- 
changeable purpose. 

20. In what sense is grace irresistible ? 

It must be remembered that the true Ghristian is the subject 
at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace 
upon the ivill, common to him and to the unconverted, and also 
of those special influences of grace within the will, which are cer- 
tainly efficacious. The first class of influences Christians may 
and constantly do resist, through the law of sin remaining in 
their members. The second class of influences are certainly effi- 



340 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 



cacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, because they act 
from within and carry the will spontaneously with them. It is 
to be lamented that the term irresistible grace has ever been used, 
since it suggests the idea of a mechanical and coercive influence 
upon an unwilling subject, while, in truth, it is the transcendent 
act of the infinite Creator, making the creature spontaneously 
willing. 

21. How can this grace he proved to be certainly efficacious t 

1st. By the evidence we have given above, as to its nature as 
the immediate operation of the mighty power of God. 

2d. By the description of the work of grace. Men by nature 
are " blind," " dead/' " slaves," etc. The change effected is a 
" new creation," etc. 

3d. From the promises of God, which are certain. The means 
which he uses to vindicate his own faithfulness must be effica- 
cious, Ezek. xxxvi., 26 ; xi., 19 ; John vi., 45. 

4th. From the connection asserted by Scripture, between 
calling and election. The called are the elect. As God's de- 
crees are certain, the call must be efficacious. — See above, ques- 
tion 15. 

5th. Faith and repentance are the gifts of God, and he who 
truly repents and believes is saved. Therefore, the grace which 
communicates those gifts is effectual, Eph. ii., 8 ; Acts xi., 18 ; 
2 Tim. ii., 25. 

22. How may it be proved that this influence is congruous 
luith our nature I 

While discarding utterly the distinction made by Bellarmine, 
(for which see above, question 19,) we say that efficacious grace is 
congruous to human nature as such, in the sense that the Spirit 
of God, while exerting an immediate and recreative influence 
upon the soul, nevertheless acts in perfect consistency with the 
integrity of those laws of our free, rational, and moral nature, 
which he has himself constituted. Even in the miraculous reve- 
lation of the new birth, he acts upon our reasons and upon our 
wills in perfect accordance with the constitution of each. This 
is certain. 1st. The same God creates and recreates ; his object 
is not to destroy, but to restore his own work. 2d. The Scrip- 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 341 

tures and our own experience teach that the immediately conse- 
quent acts of the soul in the exercise of implanted grace, are 
preeminently rational and free. In fact, the soul never acted 
normally before, Ps. ex., 3 ; 2 Cor. iii., 17 ; Phil, ii., 13. 3d. This 
divine influence is described by such terms as " drawing," "teach- 
ing," " enlightening," John vi., 44, 45 ; Eph. i., 18. 

23. What do the Scriptures teach as to the connection of this 
influence with the truth ? 

In the case of the regeneration of infants the truth, of course, 
is not used. In the regeneration of adults the truth is always 
present. In the act of regeneration the Spirit acts immediately 
upon the soul, and changes its subjective state, while the truth 
is the object consciously apprehended, upon which the new facul- 
ties of spiritual discernment and the new affections are exercised. 
The Spirit gives sight, the truth is the light discerned. The 
Spirit gives feeling, the truth presents the object beloved, Kom. 
x., 14, 17 ; James i., 18 ; John xvii., 17. 

24. What reason may be assigned for the belief that the Spirit 
does not renew those adults to whom the truth is not known ? 

Negatively. The Bible never leads us to expect such an ex- 
tension of grace, and neither the Scriptures nor our own experi- 
ence among the modern heathen ever present us with any exam- 
ples of such a work. 

Positively. The Scriptures always associate all spiritual in- 
fluence with the truth, and declare the necessity of the preaching 
the truth to the end of saving souls, Kom. x., 14. 

25. What are the objections to the Arminian doctrine of suf- 
ficient grace ? 

They hold that God has willed the salvation of all men, and 
therefore has called all alike, giving to all a grace sufficient, if 
they will improve it. 

We object, 1st. The external call of the gospel has been ex- 
tended to comparatively few. The heathen are responsible with 
the light of nature, and under the law of works, yet they have no 
means of grace, Eom. i., 18-20 ; ii., 12-15. 



342 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

2d. This doctrine is inconsistent with God's purpose of elec- 
tion. — See above, Chapter X. 

3d. According to the Arminian system it depends upon the 
free will of the man to make the sufficient grace of God common 
to all men efficient in his case. But the Scriptures declare that 
salvation is altogether of grace, and a gift of God, Eph. ii. ? 8 ; 2 
Tim. ii., 25 ; Eom. ix., 15, 16. 

4th. The Scriptures expressly declare that not even all who 
receive the external call have sufficient grace, Horn. ix., 16-24 ; 
xi.,8. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

BE GENERATION. 

1. What are the various Scripture terms by which this work 
of God is designated ? 

1st. " Creating anew/' Eph. iv., 24. 2d. " Begetting/' James 
i., 18. 3d. " Quickening," John v., 21 ; Eph. ii., 5. 4th. " Call- 
ing out of darkness into marvelous light/' 1 Pet. ii., 9. The 
subjects of it are said, 1st, to be " alive from the dead/' Kom. vi. ? 
13. 2d. To be " new creatures/' 2 Cor. v., 17. 3d. To be 
" born again," John iii., 3, 7. 4th. To be " Grod's workman- 
ship," Eph. ii., 10. 

2. What is the Pelagian view of regeneration ? 

They hold that sin can be predicated only of volitions, and 
that it is essential to the liberty and responsibility of man that 
he is always as able to cease from as to continue in sin. Regen- 
eration is therefore a mere reformation of life and habit. The 
man who has chosen to transgress the law, now chooses to obey it. 

3. What is the doctrine of the Bomish church on this subject ? 

The Komanists, 1st, confound together justification and sancti- 
fication, making these one act of God, whereby,for his own glory, 
for Christ's merits sake, by the efficient powers of the Holy Grhost, 
and through the instrumentality of baptism, he at once cancels 
the guilt of our sins, and delivers us from the inherent power and 
defilement of original sin. — Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Chap. VII. 

2d. They hold the doctrine that regeneration is accomplished 
only through the instrumentality of baptism. This is effectual in 
every instance of its application to an infant. In the case of 
adults its virtue may be either resisted and nullified, or received 
and improved. In baptism (1.) sins are forgiven ; (2.) the moral 



344 



REGENERATION. 



nature of the subject is renewed, (3.) lie is made a son and heir 
of God.— Cat. Bom., Part II., Chap. II. 

4. What are the different views as to baptismal regeneration 
entertained in the Church of England ? 

1st. The theory of the party styled Puseyite, which is identical 
with that of the Komish church. 

2d. That of a large party most ably represented by the late 
Bishop H. U. Underdonk, in his " Essay on Begeneration, Phila., 
1835." He maintained that there are two distinct regener- 
ations ; one a change of state or relation, and the other a change 
of nature. The first is baptismal, the second moral, though both 
are spiritual in so far as both are wrought by the Holy Ghost. 
The first or baptismal regeneration is a new birth, since it con- 
stitutes us sons of God, as the Jews were made his peculiar peo- 
ple by that covenant, the seal of which was circumcision. The 
second is a new birth, or creation in a higher sense, being a grad- 
ual sanctifying change wrought in the whole moral character by 
the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily connected with baptism. 



5. What view of regeneration ii 
maintain the " Exercise Scheme V 



held by those in America who 



These theologians deny the existence in the soul of any per- 
manent moral habits or dispositions, and admit the existence only 
of the soul or agent and his acts or " exercises." In the natural 
man the series of acts are wholly depraved. In the regenerated man 
a new series of holy acts are created by the Holy Ghost, and con- 
tinued by his power. — Emmons, Sermon LXI V., on the New Birth. 

6. What is the New Haven view, advocated by Dr. N. W. 
Taylor, on this subject ? 

Dr. Taylor agreed with the advocates of the " Exercise 
Scheme," that there is nothing in the soul but the agent and his 
actions ; but he differed from them by holding that man and not 
God is the independent author of human actions. He held that 
when God and the world is held up before the mind regeneration 
consists in an act of the sinner in choosing God as his chief good, 
thus confounding regeneration and conversion. The Holy Spirit, 
in some unknown way, assists in restraining the active operation 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 345 

of the natural, selfish principle which prefers the world as its 
chief good. " A mind thus detached from the world as its su- 
preme good instantly chooses God for its portion, under the im- 
pulse of that inherent desire for happiness, without which no 
object could ever he regarded as good, as either desirable or 
lovely." This original motive to that choice of God which is 
regeneration is merely natural, and neither morally good nor bad. 
Thus, 1st. Eegeneration is man's own act. 2d. The Holy Spirit 
helps man, (1.) by suspending the controlling power of his sin- 
ful, selfish disposition ; (2.) by presenting to his mind in the clear 
light of truth the superiority of God as an object of choice. 3d. 
Then the sinner chooses God as his chief good under the convic- 
tion of his understanding, and from a motive of natural, though 
not sinful, self-love, which is to be distinguished from selfishness, 
which is of the essence of sin. — See Christian Spectator, Decem- 
ber, 1829, pp. 693, 694, etc. 

7. What is the common doctrine held by evangelical Chris- 
tians ? 

1st. That there are in the soul, besides its several faculties, 
habits, or dispositions, of which some are innate and others are 
acquired, which lay the foundation for the soul's exercising its 
faculties in some particular way. Thus we intuitively judge a 
man's moral disposition to be permanently evil when we see him 
habitually acting sinfully, or to be permanently good when we 
see him habitually acting righteously. 

2d. These dispositions are anterior to moral action, and deter- 
mine its character as good or evil. 

3d. In creation God made the disposition of Adam's heart 
holy. 

4th. In the new creation God recreates the governing disposi- 
tion of the regenerated man's heart holy. 

It is, therefore, properly called a "regeneration," a "new 
creation," a " new birth." 

8. When it is said that regeneration consists in giving a new 
heart, or in implanting a new principle or disposition, what is 
meant by the terms "heart," "principle," or "disposition ?" 

President Edwards says, " By a principle of nature in this 



346 REGENERATION. 

place ; I mean that foundation which is laid in nature, either old 
or new, for any particular kind or manner of exercise of the facul- 
ties of the soul. So this new ' spiritual sense' is not a new faculty 
of understanding, "but it is a new foundation laid in the nature 
of the soul for a new kind of exercise of the same faculty of 
understanding. So that new holy disposition of heart that at- 
tends this new sense is not a new faculty of will, but a founda- 
tion laid in the nature of the soul for a new kind of exercise of 
the same faculty of will." — Edwards on Keligious Affections, 
Pt. III. sec. 1. 

The term " heart/' signifying that prevailing moral disposition 
that determines the volitions and actions, is the phrase most 
commonly used in Scripture, Matt, xii., 33, 35 ; xv., 19 ; Luke 
vL, 43, 45. 

9. How may it he shown that this view of regeneration does not 
represent it as involving any change in the essence of the soul f 

This charge is brought against the orthodox doctrine by all 
those who deny that there is any thing in the soul but its consti- 
tutional faculties and their exercises. They hence argue that if 
any thing be changed except the mere exercises of the soul, its 
fundamental constitution would be physically altered. In oppo- 
sition to this, we argue that we have precisely the same evidence 
for the existence of a permanent moral quality or disjoosition in- 
herent in the will, as the reason why a good man acts habitually 
righteously, or a bad man viciously, that we have for the exist- 
ence of the invisible soul itself, or of any of its faculties as the 
reason why a man acts at all, or why his actions are such as 
thought, emotion, volition. It is not possible for us to conceive 
of the choice being produced in us by the Holy Spirit in more 
than three ways. " First, by his direct agency in producing the 
choice, in which case it would be no act of ours. Second, by ad- 
dressing such motives to our constitutional and natural principles 
of self-love as would induce us to make the choice, in which case 
there would be no morality in the act. Or, thirdly, by producing 
such a relish for the divine character, that the soul as spontane- 
ously and immediately rejoices in Grod as its portion as it rejoices 
in the perception of beauty." 

" If our Maker can endow us, not only with the general sus- 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 347 

cepti bility of love, but also with a specific disposition to love our 
children ; if he can give us a discernment and susceptibility of 
natural beauty, he may give us a taste for spiritual loveliness. 
And if that taste, by reason of sin, is vitiated and perverted, he 
may restore it by means of his spirit in regeneration." — Hodge's 
Essays. 

10. In what sense may the soul be said to be passive in regen- 
eration ? 

Dr. Taylor maintains that regeneration is that act of the soul 
in which man chooses God as his portion. Thus, the man him- 
self, and not God, is the agent. 

But the Christian church, on the contrary, holds that in re- 
generation the Holy G-host is the agent, and man the subject. 
The act of the Holy Spirit, in implanting a new principle, does 
not interfere with the essential activity of the soul itself, but sim- 
ply gives to that activity a new direction, for the soul, though 
active, is nevertheless capable of being acted upon. And although 
the soul is necessarily active at the very time it is regenerated, 
yet it is rightly said to be passive with respect to that act of the 
Holy Spirit whereby it is regenerated. 

1st. The soul, under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, and in 
the exercise of merely natural feelings, regards some aspect of 
saving truth, and strives to embrace it. 2d. The Holy Ghost, 
by an exertion of creative power, changes the governing disposi- 
tion of the heart in a manner inscrutable, and by an influence not 
apprehended by the consciousness of the subject. 3d. Simulta- 
neously the soul exercises new affections and experimentally em- 
braces the truth. 

11. What is the difference between regeneration and conver- 
sion ? 

The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as including 
both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as 
changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, con- 
version signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted 
in regeneration, i. e., in freely turning unto God. 

Eegeneration is God's act ; conversion is ours. Eegeneration 
is the implantation of a gracious principle ; conversion is the ex- 



348 REGENERATION. 

ercise of that principle. Kegeneration is never a matter of direct 
consciousness to the subject of it ; conversion always is such to the 
agent of it. Regeneration is a single act ; complete in itself, and 
never repeated ; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the 
commencement of a series, constant, endless, and progressive. 
" Draw me, and I will run after thee," Cant, i, 4. 

12. How can it be proved that there is any such thing as that 
commonly called regeneration ? 

1st. By those Scriptures that declare such a change to be 
necessary, John iii., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 17 ; Gal. vi., 15. 

2d. By those passages which describe the change, Eph. ii., 5 ; 
iv., 24 ; James i., 18 ; 1 Pet. i., 23. 

3d. From the fact that it was necessary for the most moral 
as well as for the most profligate, 1 Cor. xv., 10 ; Gral. i., 13-16. 

4th. That this inward change is not a mere reformation is 
proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit, Eph. i., 19, 20 ; 
Titus iii., 5. 

5th. From the comparison of man's state in grace with his 
state by nature, Eom. vi., 13 ; viii., 6-10 ; Eph. v., 8. 

6th. From the experience of all Christians, and from the tes- 
timony of their lives. 

13. What is the nature of supernatural illumination ? 

The soul of man is a unit. A radically defective or perverted 
condition of any faculty will injuriously affect the exercise of all 
the other faculties. The essence of sin consists in the perverted 
moral dispositions and affections of the will. But a perverted 
condition of these affections must affect the exercises of the in- 
tellect, concerning all moral objects, as much as the volitions 
themselves. We can not love or desire any object unless we per- 
ceive its loveliness, neither can we intellectually perceive its love- 
liness unless its qualities are congenial to our inherent taste or 
dispositions. Sin, therefore, is essentially deceitful, and man as 
a sinner is spiritually blind. This does not consist in any physi- 
cal defect. He possesses all the faculties requisite to enable him 
to see the beauty, and to experience the power of the truth, but 
his whole nature is morally perverted through his evil disposi- 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 349 

tions. As soon as these are changed he will see, and, seeing, love 
and obey the truth, although no constitutional change is wrought 
in his nature, i. e., no new faculty given, but only his perverted 
faculties morally rectified. This illumination is called super- 
natural, 1st, because, having been lost, it can be restored only by 
the immediate power of God. 2d. In contradistinction to the 
mained condition of man's present depraved nature. It, how- 
ever, conveys no new truths to the mind, nor does it relieve the 
Christian, in any degree, from the diligent and prayerful study 
of the Word, nor does it lead to any fanciful interpretations of 
Scripture foreign to the plain sense of the letter, it only leads to 
the perception and appreciation of the native spiritual beauty and 
power of the inspired word, and the truths therein revealed. 

14. How may it be proved that believers are the subjects of 
such illumination ? 

1st. It is necessary, 1 Cor. ii., 14 ; 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; iv., 3 ; 
John xvi., 3, From the constitution of our nature we must ap- 
. prehend an object as lovely before we can love it for its own sake. 
2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it. " To know God is 
eternal life/' John xvii., 3 ; 1 Cor. ii., 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ; 
Eph. i, 18 ; Phil, i., 9 ; Col. iii., 10 ; 1 John iv., 7 ; v., 20 ; Ps. 
xix., 7, 8 ; xliii., 3, 4. 

As the soul is a unite, a change in its radical moral dispo- 
sitions must simultaneously modify the exercise of all its facul- 
ties in relation to moral and spiritual objects. The soul can not 
love that the loveliness of which it does not perceive, neither can 
it perceive the loveliness of an object which is totally uncongenial 
to its own nature. The first effect of regeneration, or a radical 
change of moral disposition, in the order of nature, therefore, is 
to open the eyes of our understandings to the excellency of divine 
truth, and the second effect is the going; forth of the renewed 
affections toward that excellency so perceived. This is what Pres. 
Edwards (Religious Affections, Pt. III., sec 4) calls " the sense 
of the heart.'' : > 

15. What is the nature of that conviction 7 of sin which is the 
attendant of regeneration 1 

Spiritual illumination immediately leads to the perception of 
the righteousness, goodness, and exceeding breadth and exactness 
of God's law, and by contrast of the exceeding sinfulness of sin 



350 REGENERATION. 

in the abstract, Eom. vii., 7, 13 ; and above all of his own sin — 
thus revealing, in contrast to the divine purity and righteousness, 
the pollution of his own heart, his total ill-desert, and his entire 
helplessness in all his relations to Grod, Job xlii., 5, 6. This is a 
practical experimental knowledge, — produced by the wrestling 
sXeyxog, of the Holy Grhost (John xvi., 8) — of guilt, of pollution, 
and of helplessness. 

16. What is the nature of that conviction of sin which often 
occurs before or without regeneration, and how may it be distin- 
guished from the genuine ? 

Natural conscience is an essential and indestructible element 
of human nature, including a sense of right and wrong, and pain- 
ful emotions associated with a sense of the latter. Although this 
faculty may be for a time perverted, and the sensibility associated 
with it hardened, yet it may be, and often is, in the case of the 
unregenerate quickened to a painful activity, leading to a senes 
of ill desert, pollution, helplessness and danger. In eternity this 
will constitute a large measure of the sufferings of the lost. 

On the other hand, that conviction of sin which is peculiar to 
the regenerate is distinguished by being accompanied by a sense 
of the positive beauty of holiness, and an earnest desire to escape 
not merely the pangs of remorse, but chiefly the pollution and 
the dominion of sin. 

17. What is the nature of those new affections which flow 
from the renewal of the heart, and how are they distinguished 
from the exercises of unrenewed men ? 

Spiritual illumination gives the perception of that loveliness 
which the renewed affections of the heart embrace and delight in. 
These are spiritual because they are formed in us, and preserved 
in healthy exercise by the Spirit of Grod. They are holy because 
their objects are holy, and because they delight in their objects as 
holy. The affections of unrenewed men, on the other hand, how- 
ever pure or even religious they may be, are merely natural in 
their source, and attach merely to natural objects. They may be 
grateful to Grod for his benefits, but they never love him simply 
for the perfections of his own nature. 

18. What is the nature of that new obedience which results 
from regeneration , and how does it differ from mere morality ? 



APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 351 

The perfect law is spiritual, and consequently requires per- 
fect conformity of being as well as of action ; the central and gov- 
erning principles of life must be in harmony with it. The re- 
generate man, therefore, thinks, and feels, and wills, and acts in 
conformity with the spirit of the whole word of God as far as re- 
vealed to him, because it is God's word, from a motive of love to 
God, and with an eye single to his glory. The sanctified affec- 
tions are the spring, the heart-searching law the rule, and the 
glory of God the end, and the Holy Ghost the co-worker in every 
act of Christian obedience. 

Morality, on the other hand, has its spring in the merely na- 
tural affections ; it aims only at the conformity of the outward 
actions to the letter of the law, while self, in some form of self- 
righteousness, reputation, safety, or happiness, is the determin- 
ing end. 

19. How may the absolute necessity of regeneration be 
proved ? 

1st. The Scriptures assert it, John iii., 3; Rom. viii., 6; Eph. 
ii., 10 ; iv., 21-24. 2d. It is proved from the nature of man as a 
sinner, Eom. vii., 18 ; viii., 7-9 ; 1 Cor. ii., 14 ; Eph. ii., 1. 3d. 
From the nature of heaven, Isa. xxxv., 8 ; Hi., 1 ; Matt, v., 8 ; 
xiii., 41 ; Heb. xii., 14 ; Bev. xxi., 27. The restoration of holi- 
ness is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation, Eph. i., 4 ; 
v., 5, 26, 27. 

20. Are infants susceptible of regeneration ; and, if so, what 
is the nature of regeneration in them ? 

Infants, as well as adults, are rational and moral agents, and 
by nature totally depraved. The difference is, that the faculties 
of infants are in the germ, while those of adults are developed. 
As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the in- 
herent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the 
subjects of it in precisely the same sense as adults, in both cases 
the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutible. 

The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of innate 
depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and bap- 
tism, Luke i., 15 ; xviii., 15, 16 ; Acts ii., 39. — See below, 
Chapter XXXIX. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

FAITH. 

1. What, according to its etymology and New Testament 
usage, is the meaning of the word mang, "faith," "belief?" 

It is derived from the verb midu, to persuade, convince. In 
the New Testament it is used, 1st. To expresss that state of mind 
which is induced by persuasion, Rom. xiv., 22. 2d. It often sig- 
nifies good faith, fidelity, sincerity, Rom. iii., 3 ; Titus ii., 10. 
3d. Assent to the truth, Phil, i., 27 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13. 4th. Faith 
towards, on, or in God, (em, elg ~gog,) Heb. vi., 1 ; 1 Thes. i., 8 ; 
1 Pet. i., 21 ; Mark xi., 22. In Christ, Acts, xxiv., 24 ; Gal. iii., 
26 ; and in his blood, Rom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal. ii., 16, 20. 5th. It 
is used for the object of faith, viz., the revelation of the gospel, 
Rom. i., 5 ; x., 8 ; 1 Tim. iv., 1. — Robinson's Lex. of New 
Testament. 

2. State the different meanings of the verb mareveiv (to believe), 
and of the phrases mareveiv elg, or em (to believe in or upon.) 

mareveiv signifies — 

1st. To assent to, to be persuaded of the truth, Luke i., 20 ; 
John iii., 12. 

2d. To credit the truth of a person, John v., 46. 

3d. To trust, to have confidence in, Acts xxvii., 25. 

The phrases mareveiv elg, or em, are always used to express 
trust and confidence terminating upon God, or upon Christ as 
Mediator. We are often said to believe or credit Moses or other 
teachers of the truth, but we can believe in or on God or Christ 
alone. Upon God, John xiv., 1 ; Rom. iv., 24 ; 1 Pet. i., 21 ; 
upon Christ, Acts xvi., 31 ; John iii., 15-18. 

3. How may faith be defined I 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 353 

Faith is a complex act of the soul, involving the concurrent 
action of the understanding and the will, and modified in differ- 
ent instances of its exercise by the nature of its object, and of the 
evidence upon which it rests. The most general definition, em- 
bracing all its modifications, affirms faith to be " assent to truth 
upon the exhibition of the appropriate evidence. But it is evident 
that its nature must vary with the nature of the truth believed, 
and especially with the nature of the evidence upon which our 
assent is founded. Assent to a speculative or abstract truth is a 
speculative act ; assent to a moral truth is a moral act ; assent 
to a promise made to ourselves is an act of trust. Our belief 
that the earth moves round its axis is a mere assent ; our be- 
lief in the excellence of virtue is of the nature of a moral judg- 
ment ; our belief in a promise is an act of trust/' So like- 
wise with respect to the evidence upon which our faith is 
founded. " The same man may believe the same truth on differ- 
ent grounds. One may believe the Christian system simply be- 
cause others around him believe it, and he has been brought up 
to receive it without question ; this is the faith of credulity. 
Another may believe it on the ground of its external evidence, 
e. g., of miracle, prophecy, history, its logical consistency as a sys- 
tem, or its plausibility as a theory in accounting for the pheno- 
mena of creation and providence. This is speculative faith. An- 
other may believe, because the truths of the Bible recommend 
themselves to his reason and conscience, and accord with his in- 
ward experience. This faith is founded on moral evidence. 
There is another faith founded on the intrinsic excellence, beauty, 
and suitableness of the truth from a sense and love of its moral 
excellence. This is spiritual faith, which is the gift of God." — 
Way of Life. 

4. How far is faith an act of the understanding, and how far 
an act of the will ? 

The one indivisible soul knows and loves, desires and decides, 
and these several acts of the soul meet on the same object. The 
soul can neither love, desire, nor choose that which it does not 
know, nor can it know an object as true or good without some 
affection of will towards it. Assent to a purely speculative truth 
may be simply an act of understanding, but belief in a moral 

23 




354 FAITH. 

truth, in testimony, in promises, must be a complex act, em- 
bracing both the understanding and the will. The understanding 
apprehends the truth to be believed, and decides upon the valid- 
ity of the evidence, but the disposition to believe testimony, or 
moral evidence, has its foundation in the will. Actual trust in p 
promise is an act of the will, and not a simple judgment as to iu 
trustworthiness. There is an exact relation between the moral 
judgment and the affections, and the will, as the seat of the 
moral affections, determines the moral judgments. Therefore, as 
a man is responsible for his will, he is responsible for his faith. 

5. What is the difference between knowledge and faith ? 
Generally, knowledge is the apprehension of an object as true, 

and faith is an assent to its truth. It is obvious, therefore, that 
in this general sense of the term every exercise of faith includes 
the knowledge of the object assented to. It is impossible to dis- 
tinguish between the apprehension of the truthfulness of a purely 
speculative truth and an assent to it as true. In such a case faith 
and knowledge appear identical. But while the apprehension of 
the trustworthiness of a promise is knowledge, the actual reliance 
upon it is faith. The apprehension of the moral truthfulness of 
an object is knowledge, the assent to it, as good and desirable, is 
faith. 

Sometimes the Scriptures use the word knowledge as equiva- 
lent to faith, John x., 38 ; 1 John ii., 3. 

Generally, however, the Scriptures restrict the term knowledge 
to the apprehension of those ideas which we derive through the 
natural sources of sensation and reason and human testimony, 
while the term faith is restricted to the assent to those truths 
which rest upon the direct testimony of God alone, objectively 
revealed in the Scriptures, as discerned through spiritual illumi- 
nation. Thus, faith is the " evidence of things not seen/' Heb. 
xi., 1. We are commanded " to walk by faith, and not by sight," 
2 Cor. v., 7. Here the distinction between faith and knowledge 
has reference particularly to the mode of knowing. The one is 
natural and discursive, the other supernatural and intuitive. 

6. What distinction do the Romanists make between implicit 
and explicit faith $ 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 355 

Eonianists and Protestants agree that it is not essential to 
faith that its object should be comprehended by the understand- 
ing. But, on the other hand, Protestants affirm, and Komanists 
deny, that it is essential that the object believed should be appre- 
hended by the mind : that is, that knowledge of what we believe 
is essential to faith. The Komanists, therefore, have invented 
the distinction between explicit faith, which terminates upon an 
object distinctly apprehended by the mind, and implicit faith, 
which a man exercises in the truth of propositions of which he 
knows nothing. They hold that if a man exercises explicit faith 
in a general proposition, he therein exercises implicit faith in 
every thing embraced in it, whether he knows what they are or 
not. If a man, for instance, has explicit faith that the church is 
an infallible teacher, he thereby exercises virtual or implicit faith 
in every doctrine taught by the church, although he may be igno- 
rant as to what those doctrines are. They distinguish, moreover, 
between those truths which it is necessary to regard with explicit 
faith, and those which may be held implicitly. They commonly 
teach that it is necessary for the people to hold only three doc- 
trines explicitly, 1st, that God is ; 2d, that he is a re warder, 
including future rewards and punishments ; 3d, that he is a re- 
deemer. 

" This doctrine has been recently revived by the Puseyites, 
under the title of reserve. The distinguishing truths of the gos- 
pel, instead of being clearly presented, should, it is said, be con- 
cealed or kept in reserve. The people may gaze upon the cross 
as the symbol of redemption, but need not know whether it is the 
form, or the material, or the great sacrifice once enacted on it, to 
which the efficacy is due. c Eeligious light is intellectual dark- 
ness/ says Dr. Newman. This theory rests upon the same false 
assumption that faith can exist without knowledge." — Dr. Hodge, 

7. What is the difference betiveen knowing and understanding 
a thing, and how far is knowledge essential to faith ? 

We know a thing when we simply apprehend it as true. We 
understand it only when we fully comprehend its nature, and the 
perfect consistency of all its properties with each other and with 
the entire system of things of which it forms a part. We know 



356 FAITH. 

the doctrine of the trinity when its several parts are stated to us, 
but no creature can ever understand it. 

That knowledge, or simple apprehension of the object believed 
and confided in, is essential to faith is evident from the nature of 
faith itself. It is that state of mind which bears the relation of 
assent to a certain object, involving that action of understanding 
and of will which is appropriate to that object. If a man loves, 
fears, or believes, he must love, fear, or believe some object, for it 
is evident that these states of mind can exist only in relation to 
their appropriate objects. If a real object is not present the 
imagination may present an ideal one, but that very fiction of 
the imagination must first be apprehended as true (or known) 
before it can be assented to as true (or believed.) Just as it is 
impossible for a man to enjoy beauty without perceiving it in 
some object of the mind, or to exercise complacent love in a vir- 
tuous act without perceiving it, so it is, for the same reason, im- 
possible for a man to exercise faith without knowing what he be- 
lieves. " Implicit faith" is a perfectly unmeaning formula. 

8. How can the fact that knowledge is essential to faith be 
proved from Scripture ? 

1st. From the etymology of the word morig, from necdo), to 
persuade, instruct. Faith is that state of mind which is the re- 
sult of teaching. 2d. From the use of the word knowledge in 
Scripture as equivalent to faith, John x., 38 ; 1 John ii., 3. 3d. 
From what the Bible teaches as to the source of faith. It comes 
by teaching, Horn, x., 14-17. 4th. The Scriptures declare that 
the regenerate are enlightened, have received the unction, and 
know all things, Acts xxvi., 18 ; 1 Cor. ii., 12-15 ; Col. hi., 10. 
5th. The means of salvation consist in the dissemination of the 
truth. Christ is the great teacher. Ministers are teachers, 1 
Cor. iv., 1 ; 1 Tim., iii., 2 ; iv., 13. Christians are begotten by 
the truth, sanctified by the truth, John xvii., 19 : James i., 18. — 
Dr. Hodge. 

9. How are those passages to be explained tvhich speak of 
knowledge as distinguished from faith ? 

Although every act of faith presupposes an act of knowledge, 
yet both the faith and the knowledge vary very much, both with 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 357 

the nature of the object known and believed, and with the man- 
ner in which the knowledge is received, and with the evidence 
upon which the faith rests. The faith which the Scriptures dis- 
tinguish from knowledge is the strong persuasion of things not 
seen. It is the conviction of the truth of things which do not 
fall within the compass of our own observation which may entirely 
transcend the powers of our understanding, and which rest upon 
the simple testimony of God. This testimony faith relies upon 
in spite of whatever to human reason appears inconsistent or im- 
possible. 

Knowledge, though essential to faith may be distinguished 
from it, 1st, as faith includes also an act of the will assenting, in 
addition to the act of the understanding apprehending. 2d. As 
knowledge derived through a natural is distinguished from knowl- 
edge derived through a divine source. 3d. As present imperfect 
apprehension of divine things (L e., faith) differs from that per- 
fect knowledge of divine things we shall have in heaven, 1 Cor. 
xiii., 12. 

10. If faith necessarily includes knowledge, how can men be 
commanded to believe 1 

1st. No man is ever commanded to believe that which is not 
revealed to him, either in the light of nature or by the inspired 
word. 2d. No man is ever commanded to believe a purely specu- 
lative truth. The truths of religion rest on the testimony of 
God. They are enforced by moral evidence, and faith in them 
involves a moral and spiritual knowledge of them, and delight in 
them. Moral evidence can be appreciated only by a mind pos- 
sessed of moral sensibility. And such moral insensibility as leads 
to blindness to the distinction between right and wrong is itself 
a very aggravated state of depravity. 

The Scriptures, therefore, luminous with their own self- 
evidencing light, present the truth to all to whom they come, and 
demand its instant reception upon the testimony of God. If that 
evidence is not felt to be conclusive by any one, it must be be- 
cause of the sinful blindness of his mind. Therefore Christ says, 
"ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." And unbe- 
lief is uniformly charged to the " evil heart " 




358 FAITH. 

11. What are the ultimate grounds of that assent to the truth 
which is of the essence of faith ? 

In general, the ultimate ground upon which our assent to the 
truth of any object of knowledge rests is the veracity of God. 
The testimony of our senses, the integrity of our consciences, the 
intuitions of our reasons, all rest upon his veracity as Creator. 
Practically the mind is moved to this assent through our univer- 
sal and instinctive confidence in the constitution of our own 
natures. 

Keligious faith rests, 1st, upon the faithfulness of God as 
pledged in his supernatural revelation, John iii., 33 ; 2d, upon 
the evidence of spiritual illumination, personal experience of 
the power of the truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost, the 
Sanctifier, and thus "not in the wisdom of man, but in the power 
of God," 1 Cor. ii., 5-12. 

12. What are the tivo kinds of evidence by which we know 
that God has revealed certain truths as objects of faith ? 

1st. The evidence which resides in the truth itself. Moral, 
spiritual, experimental, rational, John vi., 63 ; xiv., 17, 26 ; 
Jer. xxiii., 29. 

2d. The accrediting evidence of the presence and power of God 
accompanying the promulgation of the truth, and proving that it 
is from him. These are miracles, providential dispensations, the 
the fulfillment of prophecy, etc., John v., 36 ; Heb. ii., 4. — See 
above, Chapter III. 

13. How can it be shown that the authority of the church is 
not a ground of faith ? 

See above, Chapter V., question 18. 

14. What is the nature of historical faith, and upon what 
evidence does it rest f 

That mode of purely rational faith called historical is that 
apprehension of and assent to the truth which regards it in its 
purely rational aspects as mere facts of history, or as mere parts 
of a logical system of opinion. Its appropriate evidence is purely 
rational, e. g., the solution afforded by the Scriptures of the 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 359 

facts of history and experience, and the evidence of history, 
prophecy, miracles, etc. 

15. What is the nature of temporary faith, and of the evidence 
upon which it is founded ? 

Temporary faith is that state of mind often experienced in this 
world by impenitent hearers of the gospel induced by the moral 
evidence of the truth, the common influences of the Holy Ghost, 
and the power of religious sympathy. Sometimes the excited 
imagination joyfully appropriates the promises of the gospel, 
Matt, xiii., 20. Sometimes, like Felix, the man believes and 
trembles. Oftentimes it is at first impossible to distinguish this 
state of mind from genuine saving faith. But not springing from 
a divine work of recreation it has no root in the permanent prin- 
ciples of the heart. It is always, therefore, 1st, inefficient, 
neither purifying the heart nor overcoming the world ; 2d, 
temporary. 

16. What is the specific evidence upon which saving faith is 
founded ? 

This is the light let into the soul by the Holy Ghost in his 
work of spiritual illumination. Thus is the beauty, and excel- 
lence, and the suitableness of the truth to the practical wants of 
the subject apprehended. With this the witness of the Holy 
Ghost with and by the truth cooperates, 1 Cor. ii., 4, 5 ; Rom., 
viii., 16 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Eph. ii., 8. 

17. How may it be proved from Scripture and experience that 
spiritual illumination is the ground of saving faith t 

1st. The Scriptures, wherever they come, make a demand un- 
conditional, immediate, and universal upon the most intelligent 
and the most ignorant alike, that they should be received and 
believed, and unbelief is always charged as sin, and not as mere 
ignorance or mental incapacity. The faith which they demand 
must, therefore, be a moral act, and must depend upon the spirit- 
ual congeniality of the believer with the truth. 

2d. By nature men are spiritually blind, and subjects of an 
" evil heart of unbelief," 2 Cor. iii., 14; iv., 4. 

3d. Believers are said to be enlightened, and to discern the 



360 FAITH. 

things of the Spirit, Acts xiii., 48 ; 2 Cor. iv. ; 6 ; Eph. i., 17, 18 ; 
1 John iL, 20, 27 ; v., 9, 10. 

4th. Men believe because they are taught of God, John vi., 
44, 45. 

5th. Every Christian is conscious of believing, because he 
sees the truth believed to be true, lovely, powerful, and satisfy- 
ing. 

6th. This is proved by the effects of faith. " We are said to 
live by faith, to be sanctified by faith, to overcome by faith, to 
be saved by faith. Blind consent to authority, or rational con- 
viction, produce no such effects ; if the effects are spiritual, the 
source must be also spiritual." 

18. What are the different opinions as to the relation between 
faith and trust ? 

In consequence of their doctrine of implicit faith, that nothing 
is required beyond blind assent to the teachings of the church, 
Komanists necessarily deny that trust enters into the essence of 
saving faith. 

The Sandemanians, as the Campbellites, holding that faith 
is a mere affirmative judgment of the understanding passed upon 
the truth on the ground of evidence, also deny that trust is an 
element of saving faith. 

Some orthodox theologians have held that trust is rather to 
be regarded as an immediate and invariable consequent of saving 
faith, than an element of that faith itself. 

Keligious faith, resulting from spiritual illumination, re- 
spects the entire word of God and his testimony, and, as such, 
is a complex state of mind, varying with the nature of the par- 
ticular portion of revealed truth regarded in any particular act. 
Many of the propositions of Scripture are not the proper objects 
of trust, and then the faith which embraces them is only a rever- 
ent and complacent assent to them as true and good. But the 
specific act of saving faith which unites to Christ, and is the com- 
mencement, root and organ of our whole spiritual life, terminates 
upon Christ's person and work as mediator, as presented in the 
offers and promises of the gospel. This assuredly includes trust 
in its very essence, and this is called " saving faith" by way of 
eminence, since it is the faith that saves, and since only through 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 361 

this as their principle, are any other more general exercises of 
saving faith possible. 

19. How may the fact that saving faith includes trust be 
proved from the language of Scripture ? 

The uniform and single condition of salvation presented in the 
Scriptures is expressed in the words believe in or on Christ, elg 
or enl rbv xpwrbv, John vii., 38 ; Acts ix., 42 ; xvi., 31 ; Gal. ii., 
16. To believe in or on a person necessarily implies trust as well 
as credit. 

The same is abundantly proved by the usage with respect to 
the phrases " by faith in or on Christ/' 2 Tim. iii., 15 ; Acts 
xxvi., 18 ; Gal. iii., 26 ; Heb. xi., 1. Faith is the substance of 
things hoped for, but the foundation of hope is trust. 

20. How may the same be proved from those expressions 
which are used in Scripture as equivalent to the phrase " be- 
lieving in Christ V 

" Eeceiving Christ," John i, 12 ; Col. ii., 6. " Looking to 
Christ," Is. xlv., 22 ; compare Num. xxi., 9, with John iii., 14, 15. 
"Flying to Christ for refuge," Heb. vi., 18. " Coming to Christ," 
John vi., 35 ; Matt, xi., 28. " Committing," 2 Tim. i., 12. All 
these illustrate as well as designate the act of saving faith, and 
all equally imply trust as an essential element, for we can " re- 
ceive," or " come to," or " look to" Christ only in that charac- 
ter of a propitiation, an advocate and a deliverer, in which he 
offers himself to us. 

21. How may the same be proved from the effects which the 
Scriptures ascribe to faith ? 

The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian "embraces 
the promises," " is persuaded of the promises," " out of weakness 
is made strong," " waxes valiant in fight," " confesses himself a 
stranger and pilgrim seeking a better country." As faith in a 
threatening necessarily involves fear, so faith in a promise neces- 
sarily involves trust. 

Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God, and 
therefore necessarily involves trust, Heb. x., 23, and the whole of 
the 11th chapter, 



362 FAITH. 

22. How may it be shown that this view of faith does not 
confound faith and hope ? 

To our doctrine that saving faith involves trust, the Komanist 
objects that this confounds faith and hope, which the Scriptures 
distinguish (1 Cor. xiii., 13), since hope is only strong trust. But 
hope is not merely strong trust. Trust rests upon the grounds 
of assurance, while hope reaches forward to the object of which 
assurance is given. Trust is the foundation of hope. Hope is 
the fruit of trust. The more confiding the trust, the more assured 
the hope. 

23. What are the different opinions as to the relation between 
faith and love ? 

1st. The Komanists, in order to maintain their doctrine that 
faith alone is not saving, distinguish between a formed, or perfect, 
and an unformed faith. They acknowledge that faith is distinct 
from love, but maintain that love is essential to render faith meri- 
torious and effectual as the instrument of our salvation. 

2d. Some have regarded love as the root out of which faith 
springs. 

3d. The true view is that love is the immediate and necessary 
effect of faith. Faith includes the spiritual apprehension of the 
beauty and excellence of the truth, and an act of the will embrac- 
ing it and relying upon it. Yet these graces can not be analyti- 
cally separated, since they mutually involve one another. There 
can be no love without faith, nor any faith without love. Faith 
apprehends the loveliness of the object, the heart spontaneously 
loves it. Thus " faith works by love," since these affections are 
the source of those motives that control the will. 

The Komish doctrine is inconsistent with the essential prin- 
ciples of the gospel. Faith is not a work, nor can it have, when 
formed or unformed, any merit, it is essentially a self-emptying 
act, which saves by laying hold of the merits of Christ. It leads 
to works, and proves itself by its fruits, but in its relation to jus- 
tification it is in its very nature a strong protest against the 
merits of all human works, Gal. iii., 10, 11 ; Eph. ii., 8, 9. 

The Protestant doctrine that love is the fruit of faith is estab- 
lished by what the Scriptures declare concerning faith, that it 
" sanctifies," " works by love," " overcomes the world," Gal. v., 



APPLICATION OF EEDEMPTION. 363 

6 ; Acts xxvi., 18 ; 1 John v., 4. This is accomplished thus — 
by faith we are united to Christ, Eph. iii. ; 17, and so become 
partakers of his Spirit, 1 John iii. ; 24, one of the fruits of the 
Spirit is love, Gal. v., 22, and love is the principle of all obe- 
dience, Kom. xiii., 10. 

24. What is the oty'ect of saving faith ? 

The spiritual illumination of the understanding and renewal 
of the affections, which lays the foundation for the souls acting 
faith in any one portion of the testimony of God, lays the foun- 
dation for its acting faith in all that testimony. The whole re- 
vealed word of God, then, as far as known to the individual, to 
the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, and pretended 
private revelations, is the object of saving faith. That particular 
act of faith, however, which unites to Christ, called, by way of 
distinction, justifying faith, has for its object the person and 
work of Christ as Mediator, John vii., 38 ; Acts xvi., 31. 

25. What is meant by an article of faith as distinguished 
from a matter of opinion ? 

The Romanists hold that every dogma decided by the church 
to be true, whether derived from Scripture or tradition, is, upon 
pain of damnation, to be believed by every Christian as an article 
of faith, if known to him by an explicit, if not known by an im- 
plicit faith. On the other hand, with respect to all subjects not 
decided by the church, every man is left free to believe or not as 
a matter of opinion. 

26. What is the Anglican or Puseyite criterion for distin- 
guishing those doctrines which must be known and believed in 
order to salvation ? 

They agree with the Romanists (see above, question 6) that 
knowledge is not essential to faith. As to the rule of faith, how- 
ever, they differ. The Romanist makes that rule the teaching of 
the Papal church. The Puseyites, on the other hand, make it 
the uniform testimony of tradition running in the line of the suc- 
cession of apostolic bishops. 

27. What is the common Protestant doctrine as tofundamen- 



364 FAITH. 

tals in religion, and by what evidence can such fundamentals be 
ascertained ? 

Every doctrine taught in the Bible is the object of an enlight- 
ened spiritual faith. No revealed principle, however compara- 
tively subordinate, can be regarded as indifferent, nor may be 
adopted or rejected at will. Every man is bound to credit the 
whole testimony of God. Yet the gospel is a logically consistent 
system of truth, some of whose principles are essential to its in- 
tegrity, while others are essential only to its symmetry and perfec- 
tion, and ignorance, feebleness of logical comprehension and preju- 
dice may, and constantly do, lead good men to apprehend this 
system of truth imperfectly. 

A fundamental doctrine, then, is either one which eveiy soul 
must apprehend more or less clearly in order to be saved, or one 
which, when known, is so clearly involved with those the knowl- 
edge and belief of which is essential to salvation, that the one 
can not be rejected while the other is really believed. 

A fundamental doctrine is ascertained — 

1st. In the same way that the essential principles of any 
other system are determined by their bearing upon the system as 
a whole. 

2d. Every fundamental doctrine is clearly revealed. 

3d. These doctrines are in Scripture itself declared to be essen- 
tial, John iii., 18 ; Acts xvi., 31 ; 2 Cor. v., 17 ; Gal. ii. 21 ; 1 
John i., 8. 

28. What is the object of that specific act of faith whereby we 
are justified? 

The person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator. 

This is proved— 

1st. The Scriptures expressly declare that we are justified by 
that faith of which Christ is the object, Kom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal. 
ii., 16 ; Phil, iii., 9. 

2d. We are said to be saved by faith in Christ, John iii., 16, 
36 ; Acts x., 43 ; xvi., 31. 

3d. Justifying faith is designated as a " looking to Christ," a 
" coming to Christ," etc., John i., 12 ; vi., 35, 37 ; Isa. xlv., 22. 

4th. Kejection of Christ ; a refusal to submit to the righteous- 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 365 

ness of God is declared to be the ground of reprobation, John 
viii. ; 24 ; iii., 18, 19. 

29. How is the Bomish doctrine on this point opposed to the 
Protestant f 

The Komanists, confounding justification and sanctification, 
hold that faith justifies through the sanctifying power of the 
truth. As all revealed truth has this sanctifying virtue, it fol- 
lows that the whole revelation of God as ascertained by the de- 
cisions of the church, is the object of justifying faith. This is 
refuted by all we have established from Scripture concerning jus- 
tification, sanctification, and faith. 

30. Is Christ in all his offices, or only as priest, the immedi- 
ate object of justifying faith? 

In this act the believer appropriates and rests upon Christ as 
Mediator, which includes at once all his functions as such. These 
may be analytically distinguished, but in fact they are always in- 
separably united in him. When he acts as prophet he teaches 
as king and priest. When he reigns he sits as prophet and priest 
upon his throne. Besides this, his prophetical and kingly work 
are consciously needed by the awakened soul, and are necessarily 
apprehended as inseparable from his priestly work in the one act 
of faith. 

It is true, however, that as the substitutionary work which 
Christ accomplished as priest is the meritorious ground of our 
salvation, so his priestly character is made the more prominent, 
both in the teachings of Scripture and in the experience of his 
people. 

31. How far is peace of conscience and peace with God a 
necessary consequence of faith ? 

Peace with God is reconciliation with him. Peace of con- 
science may either mean consciousness of that reconciliation, or 
the appeasement of our own consciences which condemn us. 
Faith in every instance secures our peace with God, since it unites 
us to Christ, Eom. v., 1 ; and in the proportion in which faith in 
the merits of Christ is clear and constant will be our consciousness 



366 FAITH. 

of reconciliation with God, and the satisfaction of our own moral 
sense that righteousness is fulfilled, while we are forgiven. Yet 
as faith may be obscured by sin, so the true believer may tempo- 
rarily fall under his Father's displeasure, and lose his sense of 
forgiveness and his moral satisfaction in the perfection of the 
atonement. 

32. What are the three views entertained as to the relation 
between faith and assurance? 

1st. The Reformers generally maintained that justifying faith 
consisted in appropriating the promise of salvation through 
Christ made in the gospel, i. e., in regarding God as propitious 
to us for Christ's sake. Thus the very act of faith involves 
assurance. 

2d. Some have held that assurance in this life is unattainable. 

3d. The true view is that " although this infallible assurance 
does not belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer 
may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he par- 
take of it, yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things 
which are freely given him by God, he may, without extraordi- 
nary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means attain there- 
unto. And, therefore, it is the duty of each one to give diligence 
to make his calling and election sure." It is agreed by all that a 
true faith can not admit of any doubt as to its object. What is 
believed is assuredly believed. But the object of saving faith is 
Christ and his work as Mediator guaranteed to us in the promises 
of the gospel on the condition of faith. True faith does, there- 
fore, essentially include the assurance, 1st, that Christ is able to 
save us. 2d. That he is faithful and will save us if we believe. 
It is meant that this is of the essence of faith, not that every true 
believer always enjoys a state of mind which excludes all doubt 
as to Christ's power or love ; because the spiritual illumination 
upon which faith rests is often imperfect in degree and variable 
in exercise. Faith may be weak, or it may be limited by doubt, 
or it may alternate with doubt. Yet all such doubt is of sin, and 
is alien to the essential nature of faith. But the condition, if we 
believe, upon which all assurance of our own salvation is sus- 
pended, is a matter not of revelation, but of experience, not of 
faith, but of consciousness. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 367 

Theologians have, therefore, made a distinction between the 
assurance of faith, Heb. x., 22, and the assurance of hope. Heb. 
vi. 11. The first is of the essence of saving faith, and is the as- 
surance that Christ is all that he professes to be, and will do all 
that he promises. The second is the assurance of our own per- 
sonal salvation, is a fruit of faith, and one of the higher attain- 
ments of the Christian life. 

33. Row may it be proved that assurance of our own personal 
salvation is not essential to saving faith ? 

1st. From the true object of saving faith as given above. 2d. 
From the examples given in the Scriptures of eminent saints who 
doubted with regard to themselves, 1 Cor. ix., 27. 3d. From the 
exhortations addressed to those who were already believers to at- 
tain to assurance as a degree of faith beyond that which they al- 
ready enjoyed. 4th. From the experience of God's people in all 
ages. 

34. Hoio may it be proved that assurance is attainable in this 
life ? 

1st. This is directly asserted, Kom. viii., 16 ; 2 Pet. i., 10 ; 
1 John ii., 3 ; iii., 14 ; v., 13. 2d. Scriptural examples are given 
of its attainment, 2 Tim. i., 12 ; iv., 7, 8. 3d. Many eminent 
Christians have enjoyed an abiding assurance, of the genuineness 
of which their holy walk and conversation was an indubitable seal, 

35. On what grounds may a man be assured of his salvation ? 

" It is an infallible assurance of faith, founded, 1st, upon the 
divine truth of the promises of salvation ; 2d, the inward evidence 
of those graces unto which those promises are made, and, 3d, the 
testimony of the spirit of adoption, Eom. viii., 15, 16, witnessing 
with our spirits that we are the children of God. Which Spirit, 
Eph. i., 13, 14 ; 2 Cor. i., 21, 22, is the earnest of our inheri- 
tance whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption/' — Con. of 
Faith, Chap. XVIII. 

This genuine assurance may be distinguished from that pre- 
sumptuous confidence which is a delusion of Satan, chiefly by 
these marks. True assurance, 1st, begets unfeigned humility, 1 
Cor. xv., 10 ; Gal. vi., 14 ; 2d, leads to ever-increasing diligence 



368 FAITH. 

in practical religion, Ps. li., 12, 13, 19 ; 3d, to candid self-exami- 
nation, and a desire to be searched and corrected by God, Ps. 
cxxxix., 23, 24 ; 4th, to constant aspirations after nearer con- 
formity, and more intimate communion with God, 1 John iii., 2, 3. 

36. How may it be shown that a living faith necessarily leads 
to good works ? 

1st. From the nature of faith. It is the spiritual apprehen- 
sion and the voluntary embrace of the whole truth of God, the 
promises, the commands, the threatenings of the Scripture viewed 
as true and as good. This faith occasions, of course, the exercise 
of the renewed affections, and love acted out is obedience. Each 
separate truth thus apprehended produces its appropriate effect 
upon the heart, and consequently upon the life. 

2. The testimony of Scripture, Acts xv., 9 ; xxvi., 18 ; Gal. 
v., 6 ; James ii. 18 ; 1 John v., 4. 

3. The experience of the universal church. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. 

1. To whom are all men united in their natural estate ? 

To Adam. Our union with him includes, 1st, his federal 
headship under the covenant of works, Rom. v., 12-19. 2d. His 
natural headship, as per force of ordinary generation, the source 
of our nature, and of its moral corruptions, Gen. v., 3 ; 1 Cor. 
xv., 49. 

But the law upon which rested the covenant of works, whereby 
we were held in union with Adam, having been slain by Christ, 
" that being dead wherein we were held," we were " married to 
another," that is, to Christ, Rom. vii., 1-4. 

2. What is the general nature of our union with Christ ? 

It is a single, ineffable, and most intimate union, presenting 
to our view two different aspects, and giving rise to two different 
classes of consequents. 

1st. The first aspect of this union is its federal and represent- 
ative character, whereby Christ, as the second Adam, (1 Cor. xv, 
22,) assumes in the covenant of grace those broken obligations of 
the covenant of works which the first Adam failed to discharge, 
and fulfills them all in behalf of all his " sheep," " they whom the 
Father has given him." The consequences which arise from our 
union with Christ under this aspect of it are such as the imputa- 
tion of our sins to him, and of his righteousness to us, and all of 
the forensic benefits of justification and adoption, etc. — See 
Chaps. XXX., XXXI. 

2d. The second aspect of this union is its spiritual and vital 
character, the nature and consequences of which it is our business 
to discuss under the present head. 

24 



370 UNION WITH CHEIST. 

3. What is the foundation of this union ? 

The eternal purpose of the triune God, expressed in the decree 
of election (we were chosen in him before the foundation of the 
world, Eph. i., 4), providing for its own fulfilment in the covenant 
of grace between the Father as God absolute, and the Son as Me- 
diator, John xvii., 2-6 ; Gal. ii., 20 ; in the incarnation of the 
Son, whereby he assumed fellowship with us in community of 
nature, and became our brother, Heb. ii., 16, 17 ; and in the 
mission and official work of the Spirit of Christ (1 John iv., 13), 
through the powerful operation of whom in the bodies and souls 
of his people the last Adam is made a quickening spirit (1 Cor. 
xv., 45), and they are all constituted the body of Christ and 
members in particular, 1 Cor. xii., 27. 

4. By what analogies drawn from earthly relations is this 
union of believers with Christ illustrated in Scripture ? 

The technical designation of this union in theological lan- 
guage is "mystical," because it so far transcends all the analogies 
of earthly relationships, in the intimacy of its communion, in 
the transforming power of its influence, and in the excellence 
of its consequences. Yet Holy Scripture illustrates different 
aspects of this fountain of graces by many apt though partial 
analogies. 

As, 1st, foundation of a building and its superstructure, 1 
Pet. ii., 4, 6. 2d. Tree and its branches, John xv., 5. 3d. Head 
and members of the body, Eph. iv., 15, 16. 4th. Husband and 
wife, Eph. v., 31, 32 ; Rev. xix., 7-9. 5th. Adam and his de- 
scendants, in both their federal and natural relations, Eom. v., 
12-19 ; 1 Cor. xv., 21-49 

5. What is the essential nature of this union ? 

On the one hand, this union does not involve any mysterious 
confusion of the person of Christ with the persons of his people ; 
and on the other hand, it is not such a mere association of sepa- 
rate persons as exists in human societies. But it is a union 
which, 1st, determines our legal status on the same basis with 
his. _2d. Which revives and sustains, by the influence of his in- 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 371 

dwelling Spirit, our spiritual life, from the fountain of his life, 
and which transforms our bodies and souls into the likeness of his 
glorified humanity. 

It is, therefore — 

1st. A spiritual union. Its actuating source and bond is the 
Spirit of the head, who dwells and works in the members, 1 Cor. - 
vi., 17 ; xii., 13 ; 1 John iii., 24 ; iv., 13. 

2d. A vital union, i. e., our spiritual life is sustained 
and determined in its nature and movement by the life of 
Christ, through the indwelling of his Spirit, John xiv., 19 ; 
Gal. ii., 20. 

3d. It embraces our entire persons, our bodies through our 
spirits, 1 Cor. vi., 15, 19. 

4th. It is a legal or federal union, so that all of our legal or 
covenant responsibilities rest upon Christ, and all of his legal or 
covenant merits accrue to us. 

5th. It is an indisoluble union, John x., 28 ; Rom. viii., 35, 
37 ; 1 Thes. iv., 14, 17. 

6th. This union is between the believer and the person of the 
God-man in his office as Mediator. Its immediate organ is the 
Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, and through him we are virtually 
united to and commune with the whole Godhead, since he is the 
Spirit of the Father as well as of the Son, John xiv., 23 ; xvii., 
21, 23. 

6. How is this union between Christ and the Christian estab- 
lished ? 

It was established in the purpose and decree of God, and in 
the covenant of the Father with the Son from eternity, Eph. i., 
4 ; John xvii., 2, 6. Nevertheless, the elect, as to personal char- 
acter and present relations, before their effectual calling by the 
Spirit, are born and continued " by nature children of wrath even 
as others," and " strangers to the covenants of promise," Eph. ii., 
3, 12. In God's appointed time with each individual of his 
chosen, this union is established mutually, 1st. By the com- 
mencement of the effectual and permanent workings of the Holy 
Spirit within them, (they are quickened together with Christ) ; 
in the act of the new birth, opening the eyes and renewing 
the will, and thus laying in their natures the foundation of 



372 



UNION WITH CHRIST. 



the exercise of saving faith. 2d. Which faith is the second 
bond by which this mutual union is established, by the con- 
tinued actings of which their fellowship with Christ is sustained, 
and its blessed consequences developed, Eph. iii., 17. Thus we 
" come to him/' " receive him," " eat of his flesh and drink of 
his blood," etc. 



7. What are the consequences of this union to the believer ? 

1st. They have a community with him in his covenant stand- 
ing, and rights. Forensically they are rendered " complete in 
him." His righteousness and his Father is theirs. They receive 
the adoption in him, and are accepted as to both their persons and 
services in the beloved. They are sealed by his Holy Spirit of 
promise ; in him obtain an inheritance ; sit with him on his 
throne and behold his glory, Eom. viii., 1 ; Col. ii., 10 ; Eph. i., 
6, 11, 13 ; Phil, iii., 8, 9. 

As Mediator, Jesus is "the Christ" anointed one, and the 
believer is the Christian or receiver of "the unction," Actsxi., 26; 
1 John ii., 20. His mediatorial office embraces three principal 
functions, (1.) That of prophet, and in fellowship with him the 
believer is a prophet, John xvi., 13 ; 1 John ii., 27. (2.) That 
of priest, and the believer also is a priest in him, Isa. lxi. 6 ; 1 
Pet. ii., 5 ; Kev. xx., 6. (3.) That of king, and in him the be- 
liever is a king, 1 Pet. ii., 9 ; Rev. iii., 21 ; v., 10. 

2d. They have fellowship with him in the transforming, as- 
similating power of his life, making them like him ; every grace 
of Jesus reproducing itself in them ; " of his fulness we have all 
received, and grace for grace." This holds true, (1.) with regard 
to our souls, Rom. viii., 9 ; Phil, ii., 5 ; 1 John iii., 2 ; (2.) with 
regard to our bodies, causing them to be now the temples of 
the Holy Grhost, 1 Cor. vi., 17, 19 ; and his resurrection to be 
the cause of ours, and his glorified body to be the type of 
ours, Rom. vi., 5 ; 1 Cor. xv., 47, 49 ; Phil, iii., 21. And thus 
believers are made to bear fruit in Christ, both in their bodies 
and spirits, which are his, John xv., 5 ; 2 Cor. xii., 9 ; 1 
John i., 6. 

3d. This leads to their fellowship with Christ in their ex- 
perience, in their labors, sufferings, temptations, and death, Gal. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 373 

vi., 17 ; Phil, iii., 10 ; Heb. xii., 3 ; 1 Pet. iv., 13. Thus ren- 
dering sacred and glorious even our earthly life. 

4th. Also to Christ's rightful fellowship with them in 
all they possess, Prov. xix., 17 ; Eom. xiv., 8 ; 1 Cor., vi., 
19, 20. 

5th. Also to the consequence that, in the spiritual reception 
of the holy sacraments, they do really hold fellowship with him. 
They are "baptized into Christ/' Gal. iii., 27. "The bread 
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ; 
the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 
of the blood of Christ," 1 Cor. x., 16 ; xi., 26 : John vi., 
51-56. 

6th. This leads also to the fellowship of believers with one 
another through him, that is, to the communion of saints. 

8. What is the nature of that "communion of saints" which 
springs from the union of each saint ivith the Lord ? 

See Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVI. Believers being 
all united to one head are, of course, through him mutually re- 
lated in the same community of spirit, life, status, and cove- 
nanted privileges with one another. 

This involves upon the part of all believers — 

1st. Keciprocal obligations and offices according to the special 
grace vouchsafed to each. Like the several organs of the body 
all have part in the same general life, yet each has his own indi- 
vidual difference of qualification, and consequently of duty ; "for 
the body is not one member but many," 1 Cor. xii., 4-21 ; Eph. 
iv., 11-13. 

2d. They have fellowship in each others gifts and complemen- 
tary graces, each contributing his special loveliness to the beauty 
of the whole, Eph. iv., 15, 16. 

3d. These reciprocal duties have respect to the bodies and 
temporal interests of the brethren as well as to those which con- 
cern the soul, Gal. ii., 10 ; 1 John iii., 16-18. 

4th. They have fellowship in faith and doctrine, Acts, ii., 42 ; 
Gal. ii., 9. 

5th. In mutual respect and subordination, Eom. xii., 10; Eph. 
v., 21 ; Heb. xiii. ; 17. 



374 



UNION WITH CHKIST. 



6th. In mutual love and sympathy, Koni. xii. ; 10 ; 1 Cor, 
xii. ; 26. 

7th. This fellowship exists unbroken between believers on 
earth and in heaven. There is one "whole family in heaven and 
on earth/' Eph. iii., 15. 

8th. In glory this communion of saints shall be perfected, 
when there is " one fold and one shepherd/' when all saints shall 
be one as Father and Son are one, John x. ; 16 ; xvii. 3 22. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

KEPENTANCE. 

1. What are the words used in the original to express this 
change of mind and feeling ? 

1st. fiera^eXeadatj from \ii\o\iai, to care for ; combined with 
lierd, to change ones care. This is used only five times in the New 
Testament. 

2d. fieravoetv, from voeu, to perceive, understand, consider ; 
combined with fierd, to change ones mind or purpose. This is the 
verb constantly used in the New Testament to designate this change. 

3d. From the same source comes the noun fierdvoca, repent- 
ance, change of mind or purpose. In the New Testament usage 
of these words the idea of sorrow and contrition is included. 

2. What is saving repentance ? 

See Con. Faith, Chap. XY. Larger Cat., Q. 76. Shorter 
Cat., Q. 87. 

It includes, 1st, a sense of personal guilt, pollution and help- 
lessness. 2d. An apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. 
3d. Grief and hatred of sin, a resolute turning from it unto God, 
and a persistent endeavor after a new life of holy obedience. 

3. Prove that repentance is a grace or gift of God. 

1st. This is evident from the nature of repentance itself. It 
includes (1.) sense of the hatefulness of sin, (2.) sense of the 
beauty of holiness, (3.) apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. 
It, therefore, presupposes faith, which is God's gift, Gal. v., 22 ; 
Eph. ii., 8. 

2. The Scriptures expressly affirm it, Zech. xii., 10 ; Acts v., 
31 ; xi., 18 ; 2 Tim. ii., 25. 



376 REPENTANCE. 

4. What is the nature of that sense of sin which is an essential 

element of repentance ? 

That spiritual illumination and renewal of the affections which 
is effected in regeneration, brings the believer to see and appreci- 
ate the holiness of God as revealed alike in the law and the gospel, 
Kom. iii., 20 ; Job xlii., 6, and in that light to see and feel also the 
exceeding sinfulness of all sin, and the utter sinfulness of his own 
nature just as it is in truth. This sense of sin, thus correspond- 
ing to the facts of the case, includes, 1st, consciousness of guilt, 
i. e. 9 exposure to righteous punishment, as opposed to the justice 
of God, Ps. li., 4, 9. 2d. Consciousness of pollution as opposed to 
the holiness of God, Ps. li., 5, 7, 10 ; and, 3d, consciousness of 
helplessness, Ps. li., 11 ; cix., 22. See Way of Life. 

5. What are the fruits and evidences of this sense of sin ? 

A sense of guilt, especially when coupled with a sense of help- 
lessness, will naturally excite apprehension of danger. This pain- 
ful feeling is experienced in infinitely various degrees and modifi- 
cations, as determined by natural temperament, education, and 
the special dealings of the Holy Spirit. These legal fears, how- 
ever, are common both to false and to true repentance, and possess 
no sanctifying influence. 

A sense of pollution leads to shame when we think of God, 
and to self-loathing when we think of ourselves. 

Confession of sin, both in private to God and before men, is a 
natural and indispensible mode in which this sense of sin will give 
genuine expression to itself, Ps. xxxii., 5, 6 ; Prov. xxviii., 13 ; 
James v., 16 ; 1 John i., 9. 

The only indubitable test of the genuineness of such a sense 
of sin, however, is an earnest and abiding desire and endeavor to 
be delivered from it. 

6. Show that an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ 
is essential to repentance. 

1st. The awakened conscience echoes God's law, and can be 
appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by divine 
justice itself, and until this is realized in a believing application 
to Christ, either indifference must stupify, or remorse must tor- 
ment the soul. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 377 

2d. Out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and an inextin- 
guishable dread drives the soul away, Dent. iv. 3 24 ; Heb. xii., 29. 

3d. A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the gift 
of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is necessary to ex- 
cite in the repentant soul the proper shame and sorrow for sin as 
committed against God, Ps. li., 4. 

4th. This is proved by the teachings and examples furnished 
in Scripture, Ps. li., 1 ; cxxx., 4. 

7. What is the nature of that " turning unto God" tvhich 
constitutes the essence of genuine repentance ? 

It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with sin- 
cere sorrow, humiliation, and confession ; and a returning unto 
God, because he has a right to us, and because he is merciful and 
willing to forgive, together with a determination to live, by the 
help of his grace, in obedience to his commandments. 

8. What are the evidences of genuine repentance ? 

1st. The agreement of our own internal experience with the 
teachings of the word of God on this subject. This is to be de- 
termined by the prayerful study of the Scriptures in connection 
with self-examination. 2d. The permanent effects realized in the 
life. These are the hatred and forsaking of secret as well as of 
open sins, the choice of God's service as both right and desirable, 
public confession, and entire practical consecration. " These 
things must be in us and abound," 2 Cor. vii., 11. 

9. What are the relations which the ideas represented by the 
terms " faith," "repentance " "regeneration" and "conversion" 
mutually sustain to one another ? 

^Regeneration is the ineffable act of God implanting a new na- 
ture. The term conversion is used generally to express the first 
exercises of that new nature in ceasing from the old life and com- 
mencing the new. Faith designates the primary act of the new 
nature, and also that permanent state or habit of mind which con- 
tinues the essential condition of all other graces. It is the spiritual 
apprehension of the truth by the mind, and the loyal embrace of the 
truth by the will, without which there can be neither love, hope, 
peace, joy, nor repentance. The common sense attached to the 



378 KEDEMPTION. 

word repentance is very similar to that attached to the word con- 
version, but it differs from it as to its usage in two particulars. 
1st. Conversion is the more general term, and is used to include 
the first exercises of faith, as well as all those experiences of love 
of holiness and hatred of sin, etc., which are consequent upon it. 
Eepentance is more specific, and expresses that hatred and renun- 
ciation of sin, and that turning unto God which accompanies 
faith as its consequent. 2d. Conversion is generally used to desig- 
nate only the first actings of the new nature at the commencement 
of a religious life, or at most the first steps of a return to God 
after a notable backsliding, Luke xxii., 32. While repentance is 
applied to that constant bearing of the cross which is one main 
characteristic of the believer's life on earth, Ps. xix., 12, 13 ; Luke 
ix., 23 ; Gal., vi., 14 ; v., 24. 

10. What doctrine concerning repentance was taught by many 
of the Reformers ? 

Some of them defined repentance as consisting, 1st, of mortifi- 
cation, or dying unto sin ; and, 2d, of vivifieation, or living unto 
God. This corresponds to our view of sanctification. The Lu- 
therans make repentance to consist in, 1st, contrition, or sorrow 
for sin ; and, 2d, in faith in the gospel, or absolution. — Augsburg 
Conf., Art. 12. This, although a peculiar phraseology, is the 
true view. 

11. What in general terms is the Romish doctrine of penance ? 

They distinguish penance, 1st, as a virtue, equivalent to the 
Protestant doctrine of the grace of repentance. 2d. As a sacra- 
ment. Penance, as a virtue, is internal, or a change of mind, 
including sorrow for sin and turning unto God. External pen- 
ance, or the outward expression of the internal state, is that 
which constitutes the sacrament of penance. The matter of this 
sacrament is constituted by the acts of the penitent in the way 
of contrition, of confession, and of satisfaction. Contrition is sor- 
row and detestation of past sins, with a purpose of sinning no 
more. Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdic- 
tion and the power of the keys. Satisfaction is some painful 
work imposed by the priest, and performed by the penitent to 
satisfy justice for sins committed. The form of the sacrament is 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 379 

the absolution pronounced judicially, and not merely declara- 
tively, by the priest. They hold " that it is only by means of 
this sacrament that sins committed after baptism can be for- 
given."— Cat. Kom., Part II., Chap. Y., .Qu. 12 and 13. 

12. How may it be proved that it is not a sacrament ? 

1st. It was not instituted by Christ. The Scriptures teach 
nothing concerning it. 2d. It is an essential consequent of the 
false theory of baptismal regeneration. 3d. It does not either 
signify, seal, or convey the benefits of Christ and the new cove- 
nant. — See below, Chap. XXXVIIL, questions 2-5. 

13. What is their doctrine- concerning confession f 

Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdiction 
and the power of the keys. All sins must be confessed without 
reserve, and in all their details and qualifying circumstances. 
If any mortal sin is not confessed, it is not pardoned, and 
if the omission is willful, it is sacrilege, and greater guilt is 
incurred. Cat. Bom., Pt. II., Chap. V., Qu. 33, 34 and 42. 

14. What are the Protestant arguments against auricular 
confession f 

1st. It has no warrant in Scripture. The command is to 
" confess one to another." 

2d. It perverts the whole plan of salvation, by making neces- 
sary the mediation of the priest between the Christian and 
Christ, which has been refuted above, Chap. XXL, questions 
8 and 21. 

3d. We are commanded to confess to God immediately, Matt. 
xi., 28 ; 1 Tim. ii, 5 ; 1 John i., 9. 

4th. The practical results of this system have always been 
evil, and this gross invasion of all the sacred rights of personality 
is revolting to every refined soul. 

15. What is the nature of that absolution ivhich the Bomish 
priests claim the power to grant ? 

It absolves judicially, not merely declaratively, from all the 
penal consequences of the sins confessed by the authority of Jesus 



380 KEPENTANCE. 

Christ. They appeal to Matt. xvi. ? 19 ; xviii., 18 ; John xx., 
22, 23.— Cat. Kom. ; Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 13 and 17. Council 
of Trent, Sess. XIV., De Pcenitentia Can. IX. 

16. What are the arguments against the possession upon the 
part of the Christian ministry of such a power to absolve f 

1st. The Christian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above, 
Chap. XXI., question 21. 

2d. But even if it were, the conclusion which the Papists draw 
from it would not follow. Absolution is a sovereign, not a priestly 
act. This is plain, from the definition of the priesthood given, 
(Heb. v., 1-6,) from the Levitical practice, and from the very 
nature of the act itself. 

3d. The grant of the power of the keys, whatever it was, was 
not made to the ministry as such, for in Matt, xviii., 1-18, Christ 
was addressing the body of the disciples, and the primitive min- 
isters never either claimed or exercised the power in question. 

4th. The power of absolute forgiveness is incommunicable in 
itself, and was not granted as a matter of fact ; the words in ques- 
tion will not bear that sense, and were not so understood. The 
practice of the apostles shows that their understanding of the 
words was that they conveyed merely the power of declaring the 
conditions on which God would pardon sin, and in accordance 
with that declaration, of admitting or excluding men from seal- 
ing ordinances. 

5th. This one false principle makes Christ of none effect, and 
perverts the whole gospel. — Bib. Kep., Jan. 1845. 



• 



17. What is the Bomish doctrine concerning i 
part of penance ? 

By satisfaction is meant such works as are enjoined by the 
priest upon confession, which being set over against the sins con- 
fessed, for which contrition has been professed, are supposed to 
constitute a compensation for the breach of God's law, and in 
consideration of which the sins are forgiven. — Cat. Rom., Part 
II., Chap. V., Qu. 52 and 53. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV., De 
Pcenitentia Cans. XII.-XIV. 

18. What are the objections to that doctrine ? 



APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 381 

This doctrine logically involves two great errors. 

1st. That Christ's atonement does not render perfect satisfac- 
tion for all sins, original and actual, those committed as well 
after as before baptism. 

2d. That any thing we can do or suffer temporarily can satisfy 
for sin. Every sin incurs the penalty of the law, which is eter- 
nal death. These works of satisfaction are, moreover, com- 
manded duties, or they are not. If they are, then the perform- 
ance of one duty can never satisfy for the neglect of another, nor 
for the transgression of the law. If they are not, then they are 
only a form of will- worship, which God abhors, Col. ii., 20-23. 



C HAP T E R XXX. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

1. What is the sense in which the word SUaiog, just, is used 
in the New Testament f 

Its fundamental idea is that of perfect conformity to all the 
requirements of the moral law. 

1st. Spoken of things or actions, Matt. xx., 4 ; Col. iv., 1. 

2d. Spoken of persons (1.) as personally holy, conformed to 
the law in character, Matt, v., 45 ; ix., 13. (2.) In respect to 
their possessing eminently some one quality demanded by the law, 
Matt, i., 19 ; Luke xxiii., 50. (3.) As forensically just, i. e., as 
conformed to the requirements of the law as the condition of the 
covenant of life, Kom. i., 17. (4.) Spoken of Grod in respect to 
his possession of the attribute of distributive justice in adminis- 
tering the provisions of the law and the covenants, Kom. iii., 26 ; 
1 John i., 9. (5.) Spoken of Christ in respect to his character as 
the only perfect man, and to his representative position in satis- 
fying all the demands of the law in behalf of his people, Acts iii., 
14 ; vii., 52 ; xxii., 14. 

2. What is the usage of the verb dcfcatou, to justify, in the New 
Testament f 

It means to declare a person to be just. 

1st. Personally conformed to the law as to moral character, 
Luke vii., 29 ; Kom. iii., 4. 

2d. Forensically, that is, that the demands of the law as a 
condition of life are fully satisfied with regard to him, Acts xiii., 
39; Kom. v., 1, 9; viii., 30-33; 1 Cor.vi., 11; Gal. ii. 16; iii., 11. 

3. How can it be proved that the word ducaioco is used in a 



APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 383 

forensic sense ivhen the Scriptures use it with reference to the 
justification of sinners lender the gospel f 

1st. In many instances it can bear no other sense. The un- 
godly are said to be justified without the deeds of the law, by the 
blood of Christ, by faith, freely, and of grace, through the agency 
of an advocate, by means of a satisfaction and of imputed right- 
eousness, Rom. hi., 20-28 ; iv., 5-7 ; v., 1 ; Gal. ii., 16 ; iii., 11 ; 
v., 4 ; 1 John ii., 2. 

2d. It is used as the contrary of condemnation, Rom. viii., 
33, 34. 

3d. The same idea is conveyed in many equivalent and inter- 
changeable expressions, John iii., 18 ; v., 24 ; Rom. iv., 6, 7 ; 2 
Cor. v., 19. 

4th. If it does not bear this meaning, there is no distinction 
between justification and sanctification.* — Turrettin, L. XVI., 
Qusestio 1. 

4. What is the usage of the term SitcaioovvT], righteousness, 
and of the phrase " righteousness of God" in the New Testa- 
ment ? 

The term "just" is concrete, designating the person who is 
perfectly conformed to the law, or in respect to whom all the de- 
mands of the law are completely satisfied. The term " righteous- 
ness," on the other hand, is abstract, designating that quality or 
that obedience or suffering which satisfies the demands of the 
law, and which constitutes the ground upon which justification 
proceeds. 

Consequently, it sometimes signifies, 1st, holiness of charac- 
ter, Matt, v., 6 ; Rom vi, 13 ; 2d, that perfect conformity to the 
law in person and life which was the original ground of justifica- 
tion under the covenant of works, Rom. x., 3, 5 ; Phil, iii., 9 ; 
Titus iii., 5; 3d, the vicarious obedience and sufferings of Christ our 
substitute, which he wrought in our behalf, and which, when im- 
puted to us, becomes our righteousness, or the ground of our justi- 
fication, Rom. iv., 6 ; x., 4 ; 1 Cor. i., 30 ; which is received and 
appropriated by us through faith, Rom. iii., 22; iv., 11; x., 5-10; 
Gal. ii., 21 ; Heb. xi., 7. 

The phrase, " righteousness of God," occurs in Matt, vi., 33 ; 



384 JUSTIFICATION. 

Kom. i., 17 ; iii., 5, 21, 22, 25, 26 ; x., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Phil, 
iii., 9 ; James i., 20 ; 2 Pet. i., 1. It evidently means that per- 
fect righteousness or satisfaction to the whole law, precept, and 
penalty alike, which God provides, and which God will accept, 
in contrast to our own imperfect services or self-inflicted pen- 
ances, which God will reject, if offered as a ground of justifi- 
cation. 

5. What is the usage of the term dutaiuotg, justification, in the 

New Testament ? 

It occurs only in Eom. iv., 25 ; v., 16, 18. It signifies that 
relation to the law into which we are brought in consequence of 
the righteousness of Christ being made legally ours. We are 
absolved from all liability to the penalty, and the rewards prom- 
ised to obedience are declared to belong to us. 

6. Define justification in its gospel sense. 

God, as sovereign, elected his chosen people, and gave them to 
his Son in the covenant of grace, and as sovereign he executes 
that covenant when he makes the righteousness of Christ theirs 
by imputation. Justification, on the other hand, is a judicial 
act of God proceeding upon that sovereign imputation, declaring 
the law to be perfectly satisfied in respect to us. This involves, 
1st, pardon ; 2d, restoration to divine favor, as those with regard 
to whom all the promises conditioned upon obedience to the com- 
mands of the law accrue. It is most strictly legal, although he 
sovereignly admits and credits to us a vicarious righteousness, 
since this vicarious righteousness is precisely in all respects what 
the law demands, and that by which the law is fulfilled. — See 
below, question 2.9. 

7. What does the law require in order to the justification of a 
sinner ? 

The law consists essentially of a rule of duty, and of a 
penalty attached to take effect in case of disobedience. In the 
case of the sinner, therefore, who has already incurred the pen- 
alty, the law demands that, besides the rendering of perfect 
obedience, the penalty also should be suffered, Eom. x., 5 ; Gal. 
iii., 10-13. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 385 

8. Prove that ivories can not be the ground of a sinner' s justi- 
fication. *• 

Paul repeatedly asserts this, (G-al. ii., 16,) and declares that we 
are not justified by our own righteousness, which comes by obedi- 
ence to the law, Phil, iii., 9. He also proves the same by several 
arguments — 

1st. The law demands perfect obedience. All works not per- 
fect, therefore, lead to condemnation, and no act of obedience 
at one time can atone for disobedience at another, Gal. iii., 10, 
21 ; v., 3. 

2d. If we are justified by works, then Christ is dead in vain, 
Gal. ii., 21 ; v., 4. 

3d. If it were of works it would not be of grace. Kom. xi., 6 ; 
Eph. ii., 8, 9. 

4th. It would afford cause for boasting, Kom. iii., 27 ; iv., 2. 

5th. He also quotes the Old Testament to prove that all men 
are sinners, Kom. ii., 10 ; that consequently they can not be jus- 
tified by works, Ps. cxliii., 2 ; Kom. iv., 7, 8. He quotes Hab. 
ii., 4, to prove that " the just by faith shall live ;" and he cites 
the example of Abraham, Gal. iii., 6. 

9. What are the different opinions as to the hind of works 
ivhich the Scriptures teach are not sufficient for justification ? 

The Pelagians admit that works of obedience to the ceremonial 
law are of this nature, but affirm that works of obedience to the 
moral law are the proper and only ground of justification. The 
Komanists admit that works wrought in the natural strength, 
previous to regeneration, are destitute of merit, and unavailable 
for justification, but they maintain that original sin and previous 
actual transgressions having been forgiven in baptism for Christ's 
sake, good works afterwards performed through grace have, in 
consequence of the merits of Christ, the virtue, 1st, of meriting 
heaven ; 2d, of making satisfaction for sins. We are justified,, 
then, by evangelical obedience. — Cat. Kom., Part II., Chapter V. 
Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Can. XXIY. and XXXII. Protest- 
ants deny the justifying efficiency of all classes of works equally. 

10. How may it be shoiuii that no class of works, whether 
ceremonial, moral, or spiritual, can justify ? 

25 



386 JUSTIFICATION. 

1st. When the Scriptures deny that justification can be by 
works, the term " works" is always used generally as obedience to 
the whole revealed will of God, however made known. Works 
of obedience rendered to one law, as a ground of justification, are 
never contrasted with works wrought in obedience to another law, 
but with grace, Kom. xi., 6 ; iv., 4. God demands perfect obedi- 
ence to his whole will as revealed to any individual man. But 
since every man is a sinner, justification by the law is equally im- 
possible for all, Rom. ii., 14, 15 ; iii., 9, 10. 

2d. The believer is justified without the deeds of the law, 
Rom. iii., 28, and God justifies the ungodly in Christ, Rom. iv., 5. 

3d. Justification is asserted to rest altogether upon a different 
foundation. It is "in the name of Christ," 1 Cor. vi., 11 ; " by 
his blood," Rom. v., 9 ; "freely," "by his grace," "by faith," 
Rom. iii., 24, 28. 

4th. Paul proves that instead of our being justified by good 
works, such works are rendered possible to us only in that new 
relation to God into which we are introduced by justification, 
Eph. ii., 8-10 ; Rom. 6th and 7th chapters. 

11. How can James ii., 14-26, be reconciled with this doc- 
trine ? 

James is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justifica- 
tion, but of the relation which good works sustain to a genuine 
faith as its fruit and evidence. The meritorious ground of justi- 
fication is the righteousness of Christ, Rom. x., 4 ; 1 Cor. i., 30. 
Faith is the essential prerequisite and instrument of receiving 
that righteousness, Eph. ii., 8. James, in the passage cited, sim- 
ply declares and argues the truth that the faith which is thus the 
instrumental cause of justification, is never a dead, but always a 
living and fruitful principle. Paul teaches the same truth often, 
" f Faith works by love," Gal. v., 6, and "love is the fulfilling of 
the law," Rom. xiii., 10. 

12. What do the Scriptures declare to he the true and only 
ground of justification ? 

Justification is a declaration on the part of the infinitely wise 
and holy God that the law is satisfied. The law is, like its Au- 
thor, absolutely unchangeable, and can be satisfied by nothing 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 387 

else than an absolutely perfect righteousness, at once fulfilling 
the precept, and suffering the penalty. This was rendered by 
Christ as our representative, and his perfect righteousness, as im- 
puted to us, is the sole and strictly legal ground of our justifica- 
tion. Thus he is made for us the end of the law for righteous- 
ness, and we are made the righteousness of God in him, Rom. iii., 
24 ; v., 9, 19 ; viii., 1 ; x., 4 ; 1 Cor. i., 30 ; vi., 11 ; 2 Cor. v.. 
21 ; Acts iii., 39. 

13. How can it be proved that Christ's active obedience to the 
precepts of the law is included in that righteousness by ivhich ive 
are justified ? 

1st. The condition of the covenant of works was perfect obe- 
dience. This covenant having failed in the hands of the first 
Adam, it must be fulfilled in the hands of the second Adam, since 
in the covenant of grace Christ assumed all of the undischarged 
obligations of his people under the covenant of works. His suf- 
fering discharges the penalty, but only his active obedience ful- 
fills the condition. 
-• 2d. All the promises of salvation are attached to obedience, 
not to suffering, Matt, xix., 16 ; G-al. iii., 12. 

3d. Christ came to fulfill the whole law, Is. xlii., 21 ; Eom. 
iii. 31 ; 1 Cor. i., 30. 

4th. The obedience of Christ is expressly contrasted with the 
disobedience of Adam, Eom. v., 19. 

14. How may it be shown that Christ's obedience was free ? 

Although Christ was made under the law by being born of the 
woman, and rendered obedience to that law in the exercises of his 
created human nature, yet he did not owe that obedience for him- 
self, but rendered it freely that its merits might be imputed to 
his people, because the claims of law terminate not upon nature, 
but upon persons; and he was always a divine person. As he 
suffered, the just for the unjust, so he obeyed, the Lawgiver in 
the place of the law-subject. 

15. In what sense is Christ's righteousness imputed to be- 
lievers ? 

Imputation is an act of Grod as sovereign judge, at once judicial 



388 JUSTIFICATION. 

and sovereign, whereby he, 1st, makes the guilt, legal responsi- 
bility, of our sins really Christ's, and punishes them in him, Is. 
liii., 6 ; John i., 29 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; and, 2d, makes the merit, 
legal rights, of Christ's righteousness ours, and then treats us as 
persons legally invested with all those rights, Kom. iv., 6 ; x., 4 ; 
1 Cor. i., 30 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Phil, iii., 9. 

As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to him of 
our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of his 
righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, and 
of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punishment due 
to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to his righte- 
ousness, 1 John i., 9. 

16. Upon what ground does this imputation proceed ? 

Upon the union federal, spiritual, and vital, which subsists 
between Christ and his people. Which union, in turn, rests upon 
the eternal decree of election common to all the persons of the 
Godhead, and upon the eternal covenant of grace formed between 
the Father as God absolute and the Son as Mediator. Thus the 
ultimate ground of imputation is the eternal nature and imperial 
will of God, the fountain of all law and all right. 

17. How may the fact of this imputation be proved from 
Scripture ? 

See Rom. v., 12-21. Compare Rom. iv., 6 ; iii., 21, with 
Rom. v., 19. 

The doctrine of imputation is essentially involved in the doc- 
trine of substitution. If Christ obeyed and suffered in our place 
it can only be because our sins were imputed to him, which is 
directly asserted in Scripture, Isa. liii., 6 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; 1 Pet. 
ii., 24 ; and, if so, the merit of that obedience and suffering must 
accrue to us, Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; 1 Pet. iii., 18. See 
above, Chapter XXII., question 13. 

This doctrine is also taught by those passages which affirm 
that Christ fulfilled the law, Rom. iii., 31 ; x., 4 ; and by those 
which assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, 
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; Rom. viii., 1, etc. 

This doctrine, moreover, stands or falls with the whole view we 
have presented of the priesthood of Christ, of the justice of God, 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 389 

of the covenants of works and of grace, and of the nature of the 
atonement ; to which subjects, under their respective heads, the 
reader is referred. 

18. What are the two effects ascribed to the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness? 

Christ's righteousness satisfies, 1st, the penalty of the law ; 
2d, then the positive conditions of the covenant of works, i. e.. 
obedience to the precepts of the law.. The imputation of that 
righteousness to the believer, therefore, secures, 1st, the remission 
of the penalty, pardon of sins ; 2d, the recognition and treatment 
of the believer as one with respect to whom the covenant is ful- 
filled, and to whom all its promises and advantages legally accrue. 
See below, question 29. 

19. Are the sins of believers, committed subsequently to their 
justification , included in the pardon which is consequent to the 
imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and, if so, in zvhat way ? 

The elect, although embraced in the purpose of God, and in 
his covenant with his Son from eternity, are not effectively united 
to Christ until the time of their regeneration, when, in conse- 
quence of their union with him, and the imputation of his right- 
eousness to them, their relation to the law is permanently changed. 
Although the immutable law always continues their perfect stand- 
ard of experience and of action, it is no longer to them a condition 
of the covenant of life, because that covenant has been fully dis- 
charged for them by their sponsor. God no longer imputes sin to 
them to the end of judicial punishment. Every suffering which 
they henceforth endure is of the nature of chastisement, designed 
for their correction and improvement, and forms, in its relation 
to them, no part of the penalty of the law. ^0 

20. What are the different opinions as to the class of sins 
ivhich are forgiven when the sinner is justified ? 

Romanists teach that original sin and all actual transgressions 
prior to baptism are forgiven for Christ's sake, through the re- 
ception of that sacrament, and that after baptism, sins, as they 
are committed, are through the merits of Christ forgiven in the 



390 JUSTIFICATION. 

observance of the sacrament of penance. See above, Chapter 
XXIX., question 11. 

Dr. Pusey has revived an ancient doctrine that in baptism all 
past sins, original and actual, are forgiven ; but his system makes 
no provision for sins subsequently committed. 

Many Protestants have held that only past and present sins 
are forgiven in the first act of justification, and that sins after 
regeneration, as they occur, are forgiven upon renewed acts of 
faith. 

The true view, however, is, that in consequence of the imputa- 
tion to him of Christ's righteousness, the believer is emancipated 
from his former federal relation to the law, and consequently 
henceforth no sin is charged to him to the end of judicial condem- 
nation. This follows from the nature of justification, as stated 
above, and it is illustrated by the recorded experience of Paul, 
who, while complaining of the law of sin, still waring in his mem- 
bers, yet never doubted of his filial relation to God, nor of the 
forgiveness of his sins. 

21. What are the different opinions as to the relation between 
faith and justification ? 

Socinians hold that faith, including obedience, is the proper 
meritorious ground of justification. — Cat. Baa, quest. 418-421, 
and 453. 

Arminians teach that although faith has no merit in itself, 
since it is the gift of Grod, yet, as a living principle, including 
evangelical obedience, it is graciously, for Christ's merits' sake, 
imputed to us for righteousness, i. e., accepted as righteousness, 
upon the ground of which we are declared just. — Limborch, 
Theol. Christ. 6, 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46. 

The orthodox view is that the active and passive obedience 
of Christ satisfying both the precept and penalty of the law as a 
covenant of life, and thus constituting a perfect righteousness, is, 
upon being appropriated by the believer in the act of faith, actu- 
ally made his, in a legal sense, by imputation. Faith, therefore, 
is the mere instrument whereby we partake in the righteousness 
of Christ, which is the true ground of our justification. 

22. Prove from Scripture that faith is only the instrumental 
cause of justification. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 391 

1st. From the nature of faith itself. (1.) It is not of our- 
selves, it is the gift of God, Eph. ii., 8 ; Phil. L, 29. (2.) It is 
one of the fruits of the Spirit, and, therefore, not the meritorious 
ground of spiritual blessings, Gal. v. 22. (3.) It is an act of the 
soul, and therefore a work, but though, by means of faith, justi- 
fication is not by works, Eom. iv., 2-5 ; xi., 6. (4.) Justifying 
faith terminates on or in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, and in 
the promises of God ; in its very essence, therefore, it involves trust, 
and, denying its own justifying value, affirms the sole merit of 
that on which it trusts, Eom. iii., 25, 26 ; iv., 20, 22 ; Gal. iii., 
26 ; Eph. i., 12, 13 ; 1 John v., 10. (5.) The law necessarily 
demands a perfect righteousness, but faith, even when combined 
with the evangelical obedience which springs from it, is not a per- 
fect righteousness. 

2d. The Scriptures, when referring to the relation of justifica- 
tion to faith, use the terms en TtioTeuq, by faith, and did n'ujTeogj 
by or through faith, but never did nioriv, on account of faith, 
Gal. ii., 16. 

3d. Faith is distinguished from the righteousness which 
it apprehends, Kom. i., 17 ; Phil, iii., 8-11. — Turrettin, L. 
16, Q. 7. 

23. What is the specific object of justifying faith f 

The Socinians, denying the divinity of Christ, make the act 
of justifying faith to terminate "in God through Christ." — Eac. 
Cat., Q. 418. 

The Eomanists, confounding justification and sanctification, 
make the whole revelation of God the object of the faith that 
justifies. — Cat. Eom., Part I., Chap. 1. 

The scriptural doctrine is, that while the renewed heart be- 
lieves equally every ascertained word of God, the specific act of 
faith, whereby we are justified, terminates upon the person and 
work of Christ as Mediator. 

This is proved, 1st, from express declarations of Scripture, 
Eom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal. ii., 16 ; Phil, iii., 9. 2d. By the declara- 
tion that we are saved by believing in him, Acts x., 43 ; xvi., 31 ; 
John hi., 16, 36. 3d. By those figurative expressions which illus- 
trate the act of saving faith as " looking to Christ/' etc., Is. xlv., 
22 ; John i., 12 ; vi., 35, 37 ; Matt, xi., 28. 4th. Unbelief is 



392 



JUSTIFICATION. 



the refusing the righteousness which God provides, i. e. } Christ, 
Kom. x., 3, 4. 

24. What is the nature of that peace which flows from justi- 
fication 'i 

1st. Peace with God, his justice being completely satisfied 
through the righteousness of Christ, Kom. v., 1 ; 2 Cor. v., 19 ; 
Col. i., 21 ; Eph. ii., 14. In witness whereof his Holy Spirit is 
given to us, Kom. viii., 15, 16 ; Heb. x., 15, 17. His love shed 
abroad in our hearts, Kom. v., 5, and our habitual fellowship 
with him established, 1 John i., 3. 2d. Inward peace of con- 
science, including consciousness of our reconciliation with God 
through the operation of his Spirit, as above, and the appease- 
ment of our self-condemning conscience through the apprehension 
of the righteousness by which we are justified, Heb. ix., 14 ; x., 
2,22. 

25. What other benefits flow from justification ? 

Being justified on the ground of a perfect righteousness, our 
whole relation to God and the law is changed ; the gift of the 
Holy Ghost, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, the working 
of all things together for good in this life, deliverance in 
death, the resurrection of the body, and final glorification, all 
result. 

26. How may it be shown that this view of justification is not 
inconsistent with its free and gracious character ? 

See above, Chap. XXII., question 21. 

27. Hoiv does the apostle show that justification by faith does 
not lead to licentiousness ? 

Prop. 1st. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound, 
Kom. v., 20. 

Prop. 2d. Shall we conclude, therefore, that we are to con- 
tinue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid. Kom. vi., 1, 2. 

Prop. 3d. The federal union of the believer with Christ, 
which secures our justification, is the foundation of, and is insep- 
arable from, that vital spiritual union with him, which secures 
our sanctification, Kom. vi., 2-7. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 393 

Prop. 4th. This method of justification, so far from leading to 
licentiousness, secures the only conditions under which we could 
be holy. (1.) This method of justification, by changing our rela- 
tion to God, enables us to return to him in the way of a free, 
loving service, Kom. vi., 14 ; vii., 1-6. (2.) It alone delivers us 
from the spirit of bondage and fear, and gives us that of adoption 
and love, Eom. viii., 1-17 ; xiii., 10 ; Gal. v., 6 ; 1 John iv., 18 ; 
2 John 6. 

28. In what respect did the doctrine of Piscator on this sub- 
ject differ from that of the Reformed Churches f 

Piscator, a French Protestant divine, who flourished during 
the closing years of the sixteenth century, taught, 1st, that, as 
to his human nature, Christ was under the law in the same sense 
as any other creature, and that, therefore, he could only obey the 
law for himself ; 2d, that if Christ had obeyed the law in our 
place, the law could not claim a second fulfillment of us, and, 
consequently, Christians would be under no obligations to obey 
the law of God ; 3d, that if Christ had both obeyed the precept 
of the law and suffered its penalty, then the law would have been 
doubly fulfilled, since the claims of the precept and the penalty 
of the law are alternative, not coincident. 

This doctrine was expressly condemned in the Eeformed 
churches of Switzerland and Holland, and by the French synods 
held in the years 1603, 1612, and 1614. In 1615, however, the 
Synod tacitly allowed these views to pass without condemnation. — 
Mosheim's Hist. 

29. How may it be shown that justification is not mere 
pardon ? 

Piscator erred, from failing to distinguish, 1st, that the claims 
of law terminate not upon natures, but upon persons. Christ was 
a divine person, and therefore his obedience was free. 2d. That 
there is an evident difference between a federal relation to the law 
as a condition of salvation, and a natural relation to law as a rule 
of life. Christ discharged the former as our federal representative. 
The latter necessarily attaches to the believer as to all moral 
agents for ever. 

Justification is more than pardon. 1st. Because the very 



394 



JUSTIFICATION. 



word means to pronounce just, i. e., complete in the eye of law, 
and the law in its federal relation " embraced a two-fold sanc- 
tion, viz., the penalty of death for transgressors, and the reward 
of eternal life for the obedient." 2d. That righteousness which 
is the ground of justification is that which satisfies law. 3d. 
Because we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him. 
4th. We are declared not to be any longer under the law, but 
under grace, Eom. vi., 14 ; Gal. iv., 4, 5. Therefore, the whole 
law must have been satisfied. 5th. Because not only pardon, 
but peace, reconciliation, adoption, coheirship with Christ, and 
eternal glory, are all secured for us by the work of Christ just as 
much as forgiveness of sins, but these rewards were attached to 
the precept, not the penalty. See above, question 13. Kom. v., 
1-10 ; Acts xxvi., 18 ; Eev. i., 5, 6, etc. 

30. In what respect does the governmental theory of the atone- 
ment modify the doctrine of justification f 

See above, Chap. XXII., question 6. 

1st. It follows, from that theory, that justification is a sove- 
reign, not a judicial act of God. Christ has not satisfied the law, 
but merely made it consistent with the government of God to set 
aside the law in the case of believing men. 

2d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, it follows that his 
righteousness is not imputed ; it is the occasion, not the ground 
of justification. 

3d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, there is no strictly 
federal union between Christ and his people, and faith can not 
be the instrument of salvation by being the means of uniting us 
to Christ, but only the arbitrary condition of justification, or the 
means of recommending us to God. 

31. How does the Arminian theory as to the nature and de- 
sign of the satisfaction of Christ modify the doctrine of justifi- 
cation ? 

They hold, 1st, as to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, that 
although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice for sins, it 
was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was graciously accepted 
and acted on as such by God. — Limborch, Apol. Theo., 3, 22, 5. 
2d. That it was not strictly the substitution of Christ in place 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 395 

of his elect, but rather that he suffered the wrath of God in be- 
half of all men, in order to make it consistent with justice for 
God to offer salvation to all men upon condition of faith. 

Therefore they regard justification as a sovereign, not a judi- 
cial act, 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as sufficient to 
enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on the terms of 
the new covenant of grace, i. e., on the condition of faith. 2d. 
In imputing to the believer his faith for righteousness for Christ's 



This faith they make, 1st. To include evangelical obedience, 
i. e., the whole principle of religion in heart and life, 2d. They 
regard it as the graciously admitted ground, rather than the 
mere instrument of justification ; faith being counted for right- 
eousness, because Christ died. — Limborch, Theo. Christ., 6, 4, 
22, and 6, 4, 46. 

This theory, besides being opposed by all the arguments we 
have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine, labors 
under the further objections — 

1st. It fails to render a clear account as to how the satisfac- 
tion of Christ makes it consistent with divine justice to save men 
upon the condition of faith. If Christ did not obey and suffer 
strictly as the substitute of his people, it is difficult to see how the 
justice of God, as it respects them, could have been appeased ; 
and if he did so fulfil the demands of justice in their place, then 
the orthodox view, as above stated, is admitted. 

2d. It fails to render a clear account of the relation of faith to 
justification, (1.) Because faith in Christ, including trust, neces- 
sarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the trust ter- 
minates is the ground of justification. (2.) Faith must be either 
the ground or the mere instrument of justification. If it be the 
latter then the righteousness of Christ, which is the object of 
faith, is that ground. If it be the former, then what is made of 
the merits of Christ upon which faith rests ? 

32. How do the Romanists define justification ? 

They confound justification with sanctification. It is, 1st, the 
forgiveness of sins ; 2d, the removal of inherent sin for Christ's 
sake ; 3d, the positive infusion of grace. 

Of this justification they teach that the final cause is the glory 



396 JUSTIFICATION. 

of God and eternal life. The efficient cause is the power of the 
Holy Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. The 
instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influence of 
grace, whereby we are made not merely forensically but inherently 
righteous. — Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Chapter VII. 

They define faith in its relation to justification to be the 
beginning of human salvation, the fountain and root of all justi- 
fication, i. e., of spiritual life. They consequently hold that jus- 
tification is progressive, and that when a man receives a new na- 
ture in baptism, and the work of justification is commenced in 
him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, the work is to be 
carried on by the exercise of the grace implanted, i. e., by good 
works. Since they confound justification with sanctification, they 
necessarily deny that men are justified by the imputation of the 
righteousness of Christ, or by mere faith without works. — Canon 
9th and 11th de Justificatione. 

They admit that justification is entirely gracious, i. e., of the 
mere mercy of God, and for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, 
as neither the spiritual exercises nor the works of men previous 
to justification have any merit whatsoever. — Council of Trent, 
Sess. VI., Chapter VIII. 

33. What are the points of difference between Protestants and 
Romanists on this whole subject ? 

1st. As to the nature of justification. We regard it as a 
judicial act of God, declaring the believer to be forensically just, 
on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made his by impu- 
tation. They regard it as the infusion of inherent grace. 

2d. As to its meritorious ground. Both say the merits of 
Christ. But they say these merits are made ours by sancti- 
fication. We, by imputation, through the instrumentality of 
faith. 

3d. As to the nature and office of faith. We say that it is 
the instrument ; they the beginning and root of justification. 

4th. They say that justification is progressive. 

5th. That it may be lost by mortal sin, and regained through 
the sacrament of penance. 



APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 397 

34. What are the leading arguments against the Romanist 
view on this subject t 

1st. This whole doctrine is confused and unintelligible. (1.) 
It confounds under one definition two matters entirely distinct, 
namely, the forensic remission of the condemnation due to sin with 
the washing away of inherent sin, and the introduction to a state 
of covenant favor with God with the infusion of inherent grace. 
(2.) It renders no sensible account as to the manner in which 
the merit of Christ propitiates divine justice. 

2d. Their definition is refuted by all the evidence above ex- 
hibited, that the terms "justification" and " righteousness" are 
used in Scripture in a forensic sense. 

3d. Their view, by making our inherent grace wrought in us 
by the Holy Ghost for Christ's sake the ground of our accept- 
ance with God, subverts the whole gospel. It is of the very essence 
of the gospel that the ground of our acceptance with the Father 
is the mediatorial work of the Son, who is for us the end of the 
law for righteousness, and not our own graces. 

4th. The Scriptures declare that on the ground of the pro- 
pitiation of Christ God justifies the believer as ungodly, not as 
sanctified. It certainly could not require an atonement to render 
God both just and the sanctifier of the ungodly, Kom. iv., 5. 

5th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous- 
ness are absolutely consistent only with a forensic interpretation. 
To impute righteousness without works in the forensic sense, in 
the 4th chapter of Komans, is reasonable. To impute inherent 
grace without works is nonsense. 

6th. Their definition is refuted by all those arguments which 
establish the true view with respect to the nature and office of 
justifying faith. See above, questions 21-23. 









CHAPTER XXXI. 



ADOPTION. 



1. To what classes of creatures is the term "sons" or "chil- 
dren of God" applied in the Scriptures, and on what grounds is 
that application made ? 

1st. In the singular it is applied, in a supreme and incom- 
municable sense, to the Second Person of the Trinity alone. 

2d. To angels (1.) because they are God's favored creatures, (2.) 
because as holy intelligences they are like him, Job i., 6 ; 
xxxviii., 7. 

3d. To human magistrates, because they possess authority 
delegated from God, and in that respect resemble him, Ps. 
lxxxii., 6. 

4th. To good men as the subjects of a divine adoption. 

This adoption, and the consequent sonship it confers is two- 
fold, (1.) general and external, Ex. iv., 22 ; Rom. ix., 4 ; (2.) 
special, spiritual and immortal, Gal. iv., 4, 5 ; Eph. i., 4-6. 

2. What is the Adoption of which believers are the subjects in 
Christ ; and what relation does the conception which this word 
represents in Scripture sustain to those represented by the terms 
justification, regeneration, and sanctification ? 

Turrettin makes adoption a constituent part of justification. 
He says that in execution of the covenant of grace God sove- 
reignly imputes to the elect, upon their exercise of faith, the 
righteousness of Christ, which was the fulfilling of the whole law, 
precept as well as penalty, and therefore the legal ground, under 
the covenant of works, for securing to his people both remission 
of the penalty and a legal right to all the promises conditioned 
upon obedience. Upon the ground of this sovereign imputation 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 399 

God judicially pronounces the law, in its federal relations, to be 
perfectly satisfied with regard to them, i. e., he justifies them, 
which involves two things, 1st, the remission of the penalty due 
to their sins, 2d, the endowing them with all the rights and rela- 
tions which accrue from the positive fulfillment of the covenant 
of works hy Christ in their "behalf. This second constituent of 
justification he calls adoption, which essentially agrees with the 
definition of adoption given in our Con. Faith, Chapter XII., L. 
Cat., Q. 74 ; S. Cat., Q. 34.— Turrettin, L. 16, Q. 4 and 6. 

The definition we have given of justification, under the pre- 
ceding chapter, agrees precisely with that of Turrettin, only we 
have not made the same application of the word adoption, be- 
cause this word, as used in the Scriptures, does not appear to 
convey the idea of a mere forensic act of God, changing the rela- 
tions of his adopted children, hut rather a most excellent com- 
plex view of the believer as at once the subject of regeneration 
and justification together. That is, of the new creature in his 
new relations. 

The instant a sinner is united to Christ in the exercise of 
faith, there is accomplished in him simultaneously and insepara- 
bly, 1st, a total change of relation to God, and to the law as a 
covenant ; and, 2d, a change of inward condition or nature. The 
change of relation is represented by justification ; the change of 
nature is represented by the term regeneration. Regenebation 
is an act of God originating by a new creation a new spiritual life 
in the heart of the subject. The first and instant act of that new 
creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is faith, or a believing, 
trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the 
exercise of faith by the regenerated subject, justification is the 
instant act of God, on the ground of that perfect righteousness 
which the sinner's faith has apprehended, declaring him to be free 
from all condemnation, and to have a legal right to the relations 
and benefits secured by the covenant which Christ has fulfilled in 
his behalf. Sanctification is the progressive growth toward the 
perfected maturity of that new life which was implanted in re- 
generation. Adoption presents the new creature in his new rela- 
tion ; his new relations entered upon with a congenial heart, and 
his new life developing in a congenial home, and surrounded with 
those relations which foster its growth, and crown it with bless- 



I 



400 ADOPTION. 

eclness. Justification is wholly forensic, and concerns only rela- 
tions, immunities, and rights. Kegeneration and sanctification are 
wholly spiritual and moral, and concern only inherent qualities 
and states. Adoption comprehends the complex condition of 
the believer as at once the subject of both. 

3. What is represented in Scripture as involved in being a 
child of God by this adoption ? 

1st. Derivation of nature from God, John i., 13 ; James i., 
18 ; 1 John v., 18. 

2d. Being born again in the image of God, bearing his like- 
ness, Kom. viii., 29 ; 2 Cor. iii., 18 ; Col. iii., 10 ; 2 Pet. i., 4. 

3d. Bearing his name, 1 John iii., 1 ; Kev. ii. 17 ; iii., 12. 

4th. Being the objects of his peculiar love, John xvii., 23 ; 
Kom. v., 5-8 ; Titus iii., 4 ; 1 John iv., 7-11. 

5th. The indwelling of the Spirit of his Son, (Gal. iv., 5, 6,) 
who forms in us a filial spirit, or a spirit becoming the children 
of Grod, obedient, 1 Pet. i., 14 ; 2 John 6 ; free from sense of 
guilt, legal bondage, fear of death, Pom. viii., 15, 21 ; 2 Cor. iii., 
17 ; G-al. v., 1 ; Heb. ii., 15 ; 1 John v., 14 ; and elevated with 
a holy boldness and royal dignity, Heb. x., 19, 22 ; . 1 Pet. ii., 
9 ; iv., 14. 

6th. Present protection, consolations, and abundant provisions, 
Ps. cxxv., 2 ; Isa. Ixvi., 13 ; Lukcxii., 27-32 ; John xiv., 18 ; 1 
Cor. iii., 21, 23; 2 Cor. i., 4. 

7th. Present fatherly chastisements for our good, including 
both spiritual and temporal afflictions, Ps. Ii., 11, 12 ; Heb. 
xii., 5-11. 

8th. The certain inheritance of the riches of our Father's 
glory, as heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ, (Eom. 
viii., 17 ; James ii., 5 ; 1 Pet. i., 4 : iii., 7 ; including the exalta- 
tion of our bodies to fellowship with him, Kom. viii., 23 ; Phil, 
iii., 21. 

4. What relation do the three Persons of the Trinity sustain 
to this adoption, and into what relation does it introduce us to 
each of them severally ? 

This adoption proceeds according to the eternal pursose of the 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 401 

Father, upon the merits of the Son, and by the efficient agency 
of the Holy Ghost, John i., 12, 13 ; Gal. iv., 5, 6 ; Titus iii., 5, 
6. By it God the Father is made our Father. The incarnate 
God-man is made our elder brother, and we are made, (1.) like 
him ; (2.) intimately associated with him in community of life 
standing relations and privileges ; (3.) joint heirs with him of 
his glory, Kom. viii., 17, 29 ; Heb. ii., 17 ; iv., 15. The Holy 
Ghost is our indweller, teacher, guide, advocate, comforter, and 
sanctifier. All believers, being subjects of the same adoption, are 
brethren, Eph. iii., 6 ; 1 John iii., 14 ; v., 1. 

26 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

1. What sense do the words dytog, holy, and dyid&iv, to sane- 
tify, bear in the Scriptures ? 

The verb ayia&iv is used in two distinct senses in the New 
Testament : 

1st. To make clean physically, or morally. (1.) Ceremonial 
purification, Heb. ix., 13. (2.) To render clean in a moral sense, 
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; Heb. xiii., 12. Hence the phrase " them that are 
sanctified" is convertible with believers, 1 Cor. i., 2. 

2d. To set apart from a common to a sacred use, to devote, 
(1.) spoken of things, Matt, xxiii., 17 ; (2.) spoken of persons, 
John x., 36 ; (3.) to regard and venerate as holy, Matt, vi., 9 ; 
1 Pet. iii., 15. 

"Ay cog, as an adjective, pure, holy, as a noun, saint, is also used 
in two distinct senses, corresponding to those of the verb. 

1st. Pure, clean ; (1.) ceremonially, (2.) morally, Eph. i., 4, 
(3.) as a noun, saints, sanctified ones, Rom. i. 7 ; viii., 27. 

2d. Consecrated, devoted, Matt, iv., 5 ; Acts vi., 13 ; xxi., 
28 ; Heb. ix., 3. This word is also used in ascriptions of 
praise to God, John xvii., 11 ; Rev. iv., 8. 

2. What are the different views entertained as to the nature 
of sanctification ? 

Pelagians denying original sin and the moral inability of man, 
and holding that sin can be predicated only of acts of the will, 
and not of inherent states or dispositions, consequently regard 
sanctification as nothiug more than a moral reformation of life 
and habits, wrought under the influence of the truth in the natu- 
ral strength of the sinner himself. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 403 

The advocates of the "exercise scheme" hold that we can find 
nothing in the soul than the agent and his exercises. Kegenera- 
tion, therefore, is nothing more than the cessation from a series 
of unholy, and the inauguration of a series of holy exercises ; 
and sanctification the maintenance of those holy exercises. One 
party, represented by Dr. Emmons, say that God immediately 
effects these holy exercises. Another party, represented by Dr. 
Taylor, of New Haven, held that the man himself determines 
the character of his own exercises by choosing God as his chief 
good ; the Holy Spirit in some unexplained way assisting. See 
above, Chap. XXVI., questions 5 and 6. 

3d. Many members of the Church of England, as distinguished 
from the evangelical party in that church, hold that a man con- 
forming to the church, which is the condition of the Gospel cove- 
nant, is introduced to all the benefits of that covenant, and in 
the decent performance of relative duties and observance of the 
sacraments, is enabled to do all that is now required of him, and 
to attain to all the moral good now possible or desirable. 

4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the Holy Ghost, by his 
constant influences upon the whole soul in all its faculties, 
through the instrumentality of the truth, nourishes, exercises, 
and develops those holy principles and dispositions which he im- 
planted in the new birth, until by a constant progress, all sinful 
dispositions being mortified and extirpated, and all holy disposi- 
tions being fully matured, the subject of this grace is brought 
immediately upon death to the measure of the stature of perfect 
manhood in Christ. 

Con. Faith, Chap. XIII. ; L. Cat., question 75 ; S. Cat., 
question 35. 

3. How can it be shown that sanctification involves more than 
mere reformation ? 

See above, Chap. XXVI., question 12. 

4. How may it be shown that it involves more than the pro- 
duction of holy exercises ? 

See above, Chap. XXVI., questions 7-10. 

Besides the arguments presented in the chapter above referred 






404 SANCTIFICATION. 

to, this truth is established by the evidence of those passages of 
Scripture which distinguish between the change wrought in the 
heart and the effects of that change in the actions, Matt, xii., 
33-35 ; Luke vi. 5 43-45. 

5. What relation does sanetification sustain to regeneration ? 

Eegeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implant- 
ing a new principle of spiritual life in the soul. Conversion is 
the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontane- 
ous turning of the new born sinner to God. Sanetification is the 
sustaining and developing work of the Holy Ghost, bringing all 
the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly under the puri- 
fying and regulating influence of the implanted principle of spir- 
itual life. 

6. What is the relation which justification and sanetification 
sustain to each other ? 

In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, al- 
though as to time they are always necessarily cotemporaneous. 
The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in Christ. 
The instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified, and sanetifica- 
tion, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting that which 
is begun in regeneration, is accomplished under the conditions of 
those new relations into which he is introduced by justification. 
In justification we are delivered from all the penal consequences 
of sin, and brought into such a state of reconciliation with God, 
and communion of the Holy Ghost, that we are emancipated from 
the bondage of legal fear, and endued with that spirit of filial con- 
fidence and love which is the essential principle of all acceptable 
obedience. Our justification, moreover, proceeds on the ground 
of our federal union with Christ by faith, which is the basis of 
that vital and spiritual union of the soul with him from whom 
our sanetification flows. See above, Chap. XXXI., question 2. 

7. How can it be shown that this work extends to the whole 
man, the understanding, will, and affections ? 

The soul is a unit, the same single agent alike, thinking, 
feeling, and willing. A man can not love that loveliness which 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 405 

he does not perceive, nor can he perceive that beauty, whether 
moral or natural, which is uncongenial to his own heart. His 
whole nature is morally depraved, 1st, blind or insensible to spir- 
itual beauty ; 2d, averse, in the reigning dispositions of the will, 
to moral right, and therefore disobedient. The order in which 
the faculties act is as follows : The intellect perceives the quali- 
ties of the object concerning which the mind is engaged ; the 
heart loves those qualities which are congenial to it ; the will 
chooses that which is loved. 

This is proved, 1st, by experience. As the heart becomes 
more depraved the mind becomes more insensible to spiritual 
light. On the other hand, as the eyes behold more and more 
clearly the beauty of the truth, the more lively become the affec- 
tions, and the more obedient the will. 2d. From the testimony 
of Scripture. By nature the whole man is depraved. The un- 
derstanding darkened, as well as the affections and will perverted, 
Eph. iv., 18. 

If this be so, it is evident that sanctiflcation must also be 
effected throughout the entire nature. 1st. From the necessity 
of the case. 2d. From the testimony of Scripture, Eom. vi., 13 ; 
2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Eph. i., 18 ; Col. iii., 10 ; 1 Thess. v., 23 ; 1 John 
iv., 7. 

8. In what sense is the body sanctified ? 

1st. As consecrated, (1.) as being the temple of the Holy 
Ghost, 1 Cor. vi., 19 ; (2.) hence as being a member of Christ, 1 
Cor. vi., 15. 2d. As sanctified, since they are integral parts of 
our persons, their instincts and appetites act. immediately upon 
the passions of our souls, and consequently these must be brought 
subject to the control of the sanctified soul, and all its members, 
as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteousness unto 
God, Kom., vi., 13 ; 1 Thess. iv., 4. 3d. It will be made like 
Christ's glorified body, 1 Cor. xv., 44 ; Phil, iii., 21. 

9. To ivhom is the work of sanctiflcation referred in Scrip- 
ture ? 

1st. To the Father, 1 Thess. vi., 23 ; Heb. xiii., 21. 2d. To 
the Son, Eph. v., 25, 26 ; Titus ii., 14. 3d. To the Holy Ghost, 
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13. 



406 SANCTIFICATION. 

In all external actions the three Persons of the trinity are al- 
ways represented as concurring, the Father working through the 
Son and Spirit, and the Son through the Spirit. Hence the work 
of sanctification is with special prominence attributed to the 
Holy Spirit, since he is the immediate agent therein, and since 
this is his special office work in the plan of redemption. 

10. What do the Scriptures teach as to the agency of the 
truth in the work of sanctification ? 

The whole process of sanctification consists in the develop- 
ment and confirmation of the new principle of spiritual life im- 
planted in the soul in regeneration, conducted by the Holy Grhost 
in perfect conformity to, and through the operation of the laws 
and habits of action natural to the soul as an intelligent, moral 
and free agent. Like the natural faculties both of body and mind, 
and the natural habits which modify the actions of those facul- 
ties, so Christian graces, or spiritual habits, are developed by ex- 
ercise ; the truths of the gospel being the objects upon which 
these graces act, and by which they are both excited and directed. 
Thus the divine loveliness of G-od presented in the truth, which is 
his image, is the object of our complacent love ; his goodness of 
our gratitude ; his promises of our trust ; his judgments of our 
wholesome awe, and his commandments variously exercise us in 
the thousand forms of filial obedience, John xvii., 19 ; 1 Pet. i., 
22 ; ii., 2 ; 2 Pet. i., 4 ; James i., 18. 

11. What efficiency do the Scriptures ascribe in this work to 
the sacraments ? 

There are three views entertained on this subject by theo- 
logians — 

1st. The lowest view is, that the sacraments simply, as sym- 
bols, present the truth in a lively manner to the eye, and are 
. effective thus only as a form of presenting the gospel objectively. 

2d. The opinion occupying the opposite extreme is, that they, 
of their own proper efficiency, convey sanctifying grace ex opere 
operato, " because they convey grace by the virtue of the sacra- 
mental action itself, instituted by God for this very end, and not 
through the merit either of the agent (priest) or the receiver."—- 
Bellarmine de sac, 2, 1. 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 407 

3d. The true view is, " that the sacraments are efficacious 
means of grace, not merely exhibiting but actually conferring 
upon those who worthily receive them the benefits which they 
represent ;" yet this efficacy does not reside properly in them, 
but accompanies their proper use in virtue of the divine institu- 
tion and promise, through the accompaning agency of the Holy 
Ghost, and as suspended upon the exercise of faith upon the part 
of the recipient, which faith is at once the condition and the in- 
strument of the reception of the benefit, Matt, hi, 11 ; Acts ii., 
41 ; x., 47 ; Horn, vi., 3 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13 ; Titus hi., 5 ; 1 Pet., 
iii., 21. 

12. What office do the Scriptures ascribe to faith in sancti- 
fication ? 

Faith is the first grace in order exercised by the soul conse- 
quent upon regeneration, and the root of all other graces in prin- 
ciple, Acts xv., 9 ; xxvi., 18. It is instrumental in securing 
sanctification, therefore — ■ 

1st. By securing the change of the believer's relation to God 
and to the law, as a condition of life and favor. See above, ques- 
tion 6. 

2d. By securing his union with Christ, 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. ii., 
20 ; Col. hi., 3. 

3d. It is sanctifying in its own nature, since, in its widest 
sense, faith is that spiritual state of the soul in which it holds 
living active communion with spiritual truth. 

13. What, according to Scripture, is necessary to constitute 
a good work ? 

1st. That it should spring from a right motive, i. e., love 
for God's character, regard for his authority, and zeal for his 
glory, reigning as a permanent and controlling principle in the 
soul. 

2d. That it be in accordance with his revealed law, Deut. xii., 
32 ; Isa. i., 11, 12 ; Col. ii., 16-23. 

14. Wliat is the Popish doctrine as to u the counsels" of. Christ, 
which are not included in the positive precepts of the laiv ? 

The positive commands of Christ are represented as binding 



408 



SANCTIFICATION. 



on all classes of Christians alike, and their observance necessary 
in order to salvation. His counsels, on the other hand, are bind- 
ing only upon those who, seeking a higher degree of perfection 
and a more excellent reward, voluntarily assume them. These 
are such as celibacy, voluntary poverty, etc., and obedience to 
rule, (monastic.) — Bellarmine de Monarchis, Cap. VII. 
The wickedness of this distinction is evident — 
1st. Because Christ demands the entire consecration of every 
Christian : after we have done all we are only unprofitable ser- 
vants. Works of supererogation, therefore, are impossible. 

2d. All such will worship is declared abhorent to God, Col. 
ii., 18-23 ; 1 Tim. iv., 3. 

15. What judgment is to be formed of the good loorks of un- 
renewed men ? 

Unrenewed men retain some dispositions and affections in 
themselves relatively good, and they do many things in themselves 
right, and according to the letter of God's law. Yet — 

1st. As to his person, every unrenewed man is under God's 
wrath and curse, and consequently can do nothing pleasing to 
him. The rebel in arms is in everything a rebel until he submits 
and returns to his allegiance. 

2d. Love for God and regard to his authority are never his 
supreme motive in any of his acts. Thus while many of his ac- 
tions are civilly good as respects his fellow-men, none of them can 
be spiritually good as it respects God. There is an obvious dis- 
tinction between an act viewed in itself, and viewed in connection 
with its agent. The sinner, previous to justification and renewal, 
is a rebel ; each one of his acts is the act of a rebel, though as 
considered in itself any single act may be either good, bad, or 
indifferent. 

16. In what sense are good works necessary for salvation ? 

As the necessary and invariable fruits of both the change of 
relation accomplished in justification, and of the change of nature 
accomplished in regeneration, though never as the meritorious 
grounds or conditions of our salvation. 

This necessity results, 1st, from the holiness of God ; 2d, from 
his eternal purpose, Eph. i., 4 ; ii., 10 ; 3d, from the design and 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 409 

redemptive efficacy of Christ's death, Eph. v., 25-27 ; 4th, from 
the union of the believer with Christ, and the energy of his in- 
dwelling Spirit, John xv., 5 ; Gal. v., 22 ; 5th, from the very 
nature of faith, which first leads to and then works by love, Gal. 
v., 6 ; 6th, from the command of God, 1 Thes. iv., 6 ; 1 Pet. i., 
15 ; 7th, from the nature of heaven, Kev. xxi., 27. 

17. What is the theory of the Antinomians upon this subject f 

Antinomians are, as their name signifies, those who deny that 
Christians are bound to obey the law. They argue that, as Christ 
has in our place fulfilled both the preceptive and the penal de- 
partments of God's law, his people must be delivered from all 
obligation to observe it, either as a rule of duty or as a condition 
of salvation. 

Paul, in the 6th chapter of Romans, declares that this damna- 
ble heresy was charged as a legitimate consequent upon his doc- 
trine in that day. He not only repudiates the charge, but, on 
the contrary, affirms that free justification through an imputed 
righteousness, without the merit of works, is the only possible 
condition in which the sinner can learn to bring forth holy works 
as the fruits of filial love. The very purpose of Christ was to re- 
deem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and this 
he accomplished by delivering them from the federal bondage of 
the law, in order to render them capable as the Lord's freedmen. 
of moral conformity to it. 

18. What are the different senses which have been applied to 
the term " merit ?" 

It has been technically used in two different senses. 1st.. 
Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to which 
a reward is due, ex justicid, on account of their intrinsic value 
and dignity. 2d. Improperly, it was used by the fathers as 
equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or 
consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account of 
which it is secured. — Turrettin, L. XYIL, Qugestio 5. 

19. What distinction does the Romish Church design to sig- 
nalize by the terms " merit of condignity" and the " merit of con- 
gruity ?" 






410 SANCTIFICATION. 

The "merit of condignity" they teach attaches only to works 
wrought subsequently to regeneration by the aid of divine grace, 
and is that degree of merit that intrinsically, and in the way of 
equal right, not by mere promise or covenant, deserves the reward 
it attains at God's hands. The " merit of congruity" they teach 
attaches to those good dispositions or works which a man may, 
previously to regeneration, realize without the aid of divine grace, 
and which makes it congruous or specially fitting for God to re- 
ward the agent by infusing grace into his heart. 

It is extremely difficult to determine the exact position of 
the Eomish Church on this subject, since different schools of the- 
ologians in her midst differ widely, and the decisions of the Coun- 
cil of Trent are studiously ambiguous. The general belief ap- 
pears to be that ability to perform good works springs from grace 
infused into the sinner's heart for Christ's sake, through the in- 
strumentality of the sacraments, but that afterwards these good 
works merit, that is, lay for us the foundation of a just claim to 
salvation and glory. Some say, like Bellarmine de justific, 5, 1, 
and 4, 7, that this merit attaches to the good works of Christians 
intrinsically, as well as in consequence of God's promise ; others 
that these works deserve the reward only because God has prom- 
ised the reward on the condition of the work. — Coun. Trent, Sess. 
VI., Cap. XVI., and canons 24 and 32. 

20. What is necessary that a work should be in the proper 
sense of the term meritorious ? 

Turrettin makes five conditions necessary to that end. 1st, 
That the work be not of debt, or which the worker was under 
obligation to render, Luke xvii, 10. 2d. That it is our own, 
i. e., effected by our own natural energy. 3d. That it be perfect. 
4th. That it be equal to the reward merited. 5th. That the 
reward be of justice due to such an act. — Turrettin, L. XVII., 
Qsi83stio 5. 

According to this definition, it is evident, from the absolute 
dependence and obligation of the creature, that he can never merit 
any reward for whatever obedience he may render to the commands 
of his, Creator. 1st. Because all the strength he works with is 
.freely given by God. 2d. All the service he can render is owed 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 411 

to God. 3d. Nothing lie can do can equal the reward of God's 
favor and eternal blessedness. 

Under the covenant of works, God graciously promised to re- 
ward the obedience of Adam with eternal life. This was a reward, 
however, not of merit, but of free grace and promise. Every- 
thing under that constitution depended upon the standing of the 
person before God. As long as Adam continued without sin, his 
services were accepted and rewarded according to promise. But 
from the moment he forfeited the promise, and lost his standing 
before God, no work of his, no matter of what character, could 
merit any thing at the hand of God. 

21. How can it be proved that our good works, even after the 
restoration of our person to God's favor by justification, do not 
merit heaven ? 

1st. Justification proceeds upon the infinite merits of Christ, 
and on that foundation rests our title to the favor of God and 
all the infinite consequences thereof. Christ's merit, lying at the 
foundation and embracing all, excludes the possibility of our 
meriting any thing. 2d. The law demands perfect obedience, 
Rom. iii., 23 ; Gal. v., 3. 3d. We are saved by grace, not by 
works, Eph. ii., 8, 9. 4th. All good dispositions are graces 
or gifts of God, 1 Cor. xv., 10 ; Phil, ii., 13 ; 1 Thess. ii., 13. 
5th. Eternal life itself is declared to be the gift of God, 1 John 
v., 11. 

22. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the good works 
of believers, and the rewards promised to them ? 

Both the work and its reward are branches from the same gra- 
cious root. The covenant of grace provides alike for the infusion 
of grace in the heart, the exercise of this grace in the life, and the 
rewards of that grace so exercised. It is all of grace, grace for 
grace, grace added to grace, presented to us in this form of a re- 
ward : — 1st. That it may act upon us as a rational motive to dili- 
gent obedience. 2d. To mark that the gift of heaven and eternal 
blessedness is an act of strict legal justice (1.) in respect to the 
perfect merits of Christ, (2.) in respect to God's faithful adherence 
to his own free promise, 1 John i., 9. 3d. To indicate that the 
heavenly reward stands in a certain gracious proportion to the 



412 



PERFECTIONISM. 



grace given in the obedience on earth ; (1.) because God so wills 
it ; Matt, xvi., 27 ; 1 Cor. iii., 8 ; (2.) because the grace given on 
earth prepares the soul to receive the grace given in heaven, 2 
Cor. iv., 17. 



IS PERFECT SANCTIFICATION 

Christ in this life ? 



ATTAINABLE BY BELIEVERS IN 



23. What, in general terms, is perfectionism ? 

The various theories of perfectionism all agree in maintain- 
ing that it is possible for a child of God in this world to be- 
come, 1st, perfectly free from sin, 2d, conformed to the law under 
which they now live. They differ very variously among them- 
selves, however, 1st, as to what sin is ; 2d, as to what law we are 
now obliged to fulfill ; 3d, as to the means whereby this perfec- 
tion may be attained, whether by nature or by grace. 

24. How does the Pelagian theory of the nature of man and 
of grace lead to perfectionism ? 

Pelagians maintain, 1st, as to man's nature, that it was not 
radically corrupted by the fall, and that every man possesses suf- 
ficient power to fulfill all the duties required of him, since God 
can not in justice demand that which man has not full power to 
do. 2d. As to God's grace, that it is nothing more than the fav- 
orable constitution of our own minds, and the influence exerted 
on them by the truth he has revealed to us, and the propi- 
tious circumstances in which he has placed us. Thus, in the 
Christian church, and with the Christian revelation, men are, in 
fact, placed in the most propitious circumstances possible to per- 
suade them to perform their duties. It follows from this system 
directly that every one who wishes may certainly attain perfec- 
tion by using his natural powers and advantages of position with 
sufficient care. — Wigger's Historical view of Augustinianism and 
Pelagianism, quoted by Dr. G. Peck. 

25. What, according to the Pelagian theory, is the nature of 
the sin from which man may be perfectly free ; wliat the law tvhich 
he may perfectly fulfill, and what are the means by which this 
'perfection may be attained ? 

They deny original and inherent corruption of nature, and 



APPLICATION OF EEDEMPTION. 413 

hold that sin is only voluntary transgression of known law, from 
which any man may abstain if he will. 

As to the law which man in his present state may perfectly 
fulfill, they hold that it is the single and original law of God, the 
requirements of which, however, in the case of every individual 
subject, are measured by the individual's ability, and opportuni- 
ties of knowledge. As to the means whereby this perfection may 
be attained, they maintain the plenary ability of man's natural 
will to discharge all the obligations resting upon him, and they 
admit the assistance of God's grace only in the sense of the influ- 
ence of the truth, and other propitious circumstances in persuad- 
ing man to use his own power. Thus the means of perfect sane- 
tification are, 1st, man's own volition, 2d, as helped by the study 
of the Bible, prudent avoidance of temptation, etc. 

26. In what sense do Romanists hold the doctrine of per- 
fection ? 

The decisions of the Council of Trent upon this subject, as 
upon all critical points, are studiously ambiguous. They lay 
down the principle that the law must be possible to them upon 
whom it is binding, since God does not command impossibilities. 
Men justified (sanctified) may by the grace of God dwelling in 
them satisfy the divine law, pro hujus vitas statu, i. e., as graci- 
ously for Christ's sake adjusted to our present capacities. They 
confess, nevertheless, that the just may fall into venial sins every 
day, and that while in the flesh no man can live entirely without 
sin, (unless by a special privilege of God) ; yet that in this life 
the renewed can fully keep the divine law ; and even by the ob- 
servance of the evangelical counsels do more than is commanded ; 
and thus, as many saints have actually done, lay up a fund of 
supererogatory merit. — Council of Trent, Session VI. Compare 
Chapters XI. and XVI., and canons 18, 23, and 32. See above, 
question 14. 

27. In what sense do they hold that the renewed may, in this 
life live without sin ; in what sense fully satisfy the law ; and 
by the use of what means do they teach that this perfection may be 
attained ? 

As to sin, they hold the distinction between mortal and venial 



414 PEKFECTIONISM. 

sins, and that the concupiscence that remains in the bosom of the 
renewed, as the result of original and the fuel of actual sin, is not 
itself sin, since sin consists only in the consent of the will to the 
impulse of concupiscence. In accordance with these views they hold 
that a Christian in this life may live without committing mortal 
sins, but that he never can be free from the inward movements 
of concupiscence, nor from liability to fall through ignorance, in- 
attention, or passion into venial sins. 

As to the law, which a believer in this life may fully satisfy, 
they hold that as God is just and can not demand of us what is 
impossible, his law is graciously adjusted to our present ca- 
pacities, as assisted by grace, and that it is this law pro hujus 
vitce statu, which we may fulfill. 

As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they 
hold that divine grace precedes, accompanies, and follows all of 
our good works, which divine grace is to be sought through those 
sacramental and priestly channels which Christ has institued in 
his church, and especially in the observance of works of prayer, 
fasting, and alms deeds, and the acquisition of supererogatory 
merit by the fulfillment of the counsels of Christ to chastity, 
obedience, and voluntary poverty. — Council of Trent, Sess. XIV., 
Chapter V., Sess. VI., Chapters XI. and XII., Sess. V., canon 
5 ; Cat. Kom., Part II., Chapter II., question 32, and Part 
II., Chapter V., question 59, and Part III., Chapter X., ques- 
tions 5-10. 

28. In what form was the doctrine taught by the early Ar- 
minians ? 

Arminius declared that his mind was in suspense upon this 
subject, (Writings of Arminius, translated by Nichols, Vol. I., p. 
256.) His immediate successors in the theological leadership of 
the remonstrant party, developed a theory of perfectionism ap- 
parently identical with that taught by Wesley, and professed by 
his disciples. "A man can, with the assistance of divine grace, 
keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according to the 
gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical perfection, 
(for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which includes sin- 
lessness entire in all respects and in the highest degree, and ex- 
cludes all imperfection and infirmity, for this we believe to be 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 415 

impossible,) embraces two things, 1st, a perfection proportioned 
to the powers of each individual : 2d, a desire of making continual 
progress and increasing one's strength more and more." — Epis- 
copius, quoted by Dr. G-. Peck, " Christian Perfection," pp. 135 
and 136. 

29. What is the Wesleyan doctrine on this subject ? 

1st. That although every believer as soon as he is justified is 
regenerated, and commences the incipient stages of sanctification, 
yet this does not exclude the remains of much inherent sin, nor the 
warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, which may continue for a 
long time, but which must cease at some time before the subject 
can be fit for heaven. 

2d. This state of progressive sanctification is not itself per- 
fection, which is properly designated by the phrases " entire," or 
" perfect sanctification." This, sooner or later, every heir of glory 
must experience ; although the majority do not reach it long be- 
fore death, it is the attainment of some in the midst of life, and 
consequently it is the duty and privilege of all to desire, strive 
for and expect its attainment now. 

3d. This state of evangelical perfection does not consist in an 
ability to fulfill perfectly the original and absolute law of holi- 
ness under which Adam was created, nor does it exclude all li- 
ability to mistake, or to the infirmities of the flesh, and of natural 
temperament, but it does exclude all inward disposition to sin as 
well as all outward commission of it, since it consists in a state 
in which perfect faith in Christ and perfect love for God fills the 
whole soul and governs the entire life, and thus fulfills all the re- 
quirements of the " law of Christ," under which alone the Chris- 
tian's probation is now held. 

30. In what sense do they teach that men may live without 
sin ? 

Mr. Wesley did not himself use, though he did not object to 
the phrase " sinless perfection." He distinguished between " sin, 
properly so called, i. e., a voluntary transgression of a known law, 
and sin, improperly so called, i. e., an involuntary transgression 
of a divine law, known or unknown," and declared " I believe 
there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involun- 



416 PERFECTIONISM. 

tary transgressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent 
on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality." He 
also declares that the obedience of the perfect Christian " can not 
bear the rigor of God's justice, but needs atoning blood/' and 
consequently the most perfect " must continually say, ( forgive us 
our trespasses/ " and Dr. Peck says that the holier men are here 
" the more they loathe and abhor themselves." On the other 
hand they hold that a Christian may in this life attain to a state 
of perfect and constant love, which fulfills perfectly all the require- 
ments of the gospel covenant. Violations of the original and ab- 
solute law of God are not counted to the believer for sin, since 
for him Christ has been made the end of that law for righteous- 
ness, and for Christ's sake he has been delivered from that law 
and been made subject to the " law of Christ," and that only is 
sin to the Christian which is a violation of this law of love. See 
Mr. Wesley's " Tract on Christian Perfection" in the volume of 
" Methodist Doctrinal Tracts," pp. 294, 310, 312, and Dr. Peck's 
" Christian Doc. of Perfection," p. 204. 

31. What law do they say the Christian can in this life per- 
fectly obey ? 

Dr. Peck says, p. 244, " To fallen humanity, though renewed 
by grace, perfect obedience to the moral law is impracticable dur- 
ing the present probationary state. And consequently Christian 
perfection does not imply perfect obedience to the moral law." — 
Peck, p. 244. 

This moral law they hold to be universal and unchangeable, 
all moral agents are under perpetual obligations to fulfill it, and 
they are in no degree released therefrom by their loss of ability 
through sin. — Peck, p. 271. This law sustains, however, a two- 
fold relation to the creature. 1st. It is a rule of being and act- 
ing. 2d. It is a condition of acceptance. In consequence of sin, 
it became impossible for men to obtain salvation by the law, and 
therefore Christ appeared and rendered to this law perfect satis- 
faction in our stead, and thus is for us the end of the law for righte- 
ousness. This law, therefore, remaining for ever as a rule of duty, 
is abrogated by Christ as a condition of our acceptance. " Nor 
is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the 
Mosaic law (I mean it is not the condition either of present or 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 417 

future salvation.)" — Doctrinal Tracts, p. 332. " The gospel, 
which is the law of love, the l law of liberty/ offers salvation upon 
other terms, and yet provides the vindication cf the broken law. 
The condition of justification at first is faith alone, and the con- 
dition of continued acceptance is faith working by love. There 
are degrees of faith, and degrees of love. . . . Perfect faith 
and perfect love is Christian perfection." " Christian character 
is estimated by the conditions of the gospel ; Christian perfection 
implies the perfect performance of these conditions and nothing 
more." 

32. By ivhat means do they teach this perfection is to be at- 
tained ? 

Wesley says, " I believe this perfection is always wrought in 
the soul by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. But 
I believe there is a gradual work, both preceding and following 
that instant," — Quoted by Dr. Peck, pp. 47, 48. 

They hold that this entire sanctification is not to be effected 
through either the strength or the merit of man, but entirely of 
grace, for Christ's sake, by the Holy Ghost, through the instru- 
mentality of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which faith involves 
our believing, 1st, "in the sufficiency of the provisions of the 
gospel for the complete deliverance of the soul from sin." 2d. 
" That these provisions are made for us." 3d. " That this bless- 
ing is for us noiu." — Peck, " Ch. Doc. Sane," pp. 405-407. 

33. Wliat is the Oberlin doctrine of perfection 1 

"It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all 
existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect 
obedience to the moral law." This is God's original and univer- 
sal law, which, however, always, not because of grace, but of 
sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the measure of the present 
ability of the subject. The law of God can not now justly de- 
mand that we should love him as we might have done if we had 
always improved our time, etc. Yet a Christian may now attain 
to a state of " perfect and disinterested benevolence," may be, 
" according to his knowledge, as upright as God is," and as "per- 
fectly conformed to the will of God as is the will of the inhabit- 
ants of heaven." And this, Mr. Finney appears to teach, is 

27 



418 PERFECTIONISM. 

essential for even the lowest stage of genuine Christian experi- 
ence. The amount of the matter appears to be, God has a right 
to demand only that which we have the power to render ; there- 
fore, it follows that we have full power to render all that God 
demands, and, therefore, we may be as perfectly conformed to his 
will as it regards us, as the inhabitants of heaven are to his will 
as it regards them. 

Pres. Mahan, " Scripture Doctrines of Christian Perfection," 
and Prof. Finney, Oberlin Evangelist, Vol. IV., No. 19, and Vol. 
IV., No. 15, as quoted by Dr. Peck. 

34. State the points of agreement and disagreement betiveen 
these several theories, Pelagian, Romish, Arminian, and 
Oberlin f 

1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men 
in this life to attain a state in which they may habitually and 
perfectly fulfill all their obligations, i. e., to be and do perfectly 
all that God requires them to be or do at present. 

2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying 
the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and conse- 
quently, in denying the necessity of the intervention of super- 
natural grace to the end of making men perfect. 

3d. The Pelagian and Oberlin theories agree in making the 
original moral law of God the standard of perfection. The Ober- 
lin theologians, however, admitting that our powers are deterio- 
rated by sin, hold that God's law, as a matter of sheer justice, 
adjusts its demands to the present ability of the subject. The 
Eomish theory regards the same law as the standard of perfec- 
tion, but differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining that 
the demands of this law are adjusted to man's deteriorated pow- 
ers ; and on the other hand, it differs from the Oberlin theory, 
by holding that the lowering of the demands of this law in adjust- 
ment to the enfeebled powers of man, instead of being of sheer 
justice, is of grace for the merits of Christ. The Arminian the- 
ory differs from all the rest in denying that the original law is the 
standard of evangelical perfection ; in holding that that law hav- 
ing been fulfilled by Christ, the Christian is now required only to 
iulfill .the requirements of the gospel covenant of grace. This, 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 419 

however, appears to differ more in form than essence from the 
Eomish position in this regard. 

4th. The Eomish and Arminian theories agree, 1st, in admit- 
ting that the perfect Christian is still liable to transgress the pro- 
visions of the original moral law, and that he is subject to mis- 
takes and infirmities. The Eomanist calls them venial sins ; the 
Arminian, mistakes or infirmities. 2d. In referring all the work 
of making man perfect to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, who 
is given for Christ's sake. But they differ, on the other hand, 
1st, as to the nature of that faith by which sanctification is ef- 
fected, and, 2d, as to the merit of good works. 

35. Wliat are the arguments upon ichicli perfectionists sus- 
tain their theory, and how may they be answered ? 

1st. They argue that this perfection is attainable in this life, 
(1.) From the commands of God, who never will command im- 
possibilities, Matt, v., 48. (2.) From the fact that abundant 
provision has already been made in the gospel for securing the 
perfect sanctification of God's people ; in fact, all the provision 
that ever will be made. (3.) From the promises of God to 
redeem Israel from all his iniquities, etc., Ps. cxxx., 8 ; Ezek. 
xxxvi., 25-29 ; 1 John i., 7, 9. (4.) From the prayers of saints 
recorded in Scripture with implied approval, Ps. li., 2 ; Heb, 
xiii., 21. 

2d. They argue that this perfection has in fact been attained. 
(1.) From biblical examples, as David, Acts xiii., 22. See also 
Gen. vi., 9 ; Job i., 1 ; Luke i., 6. (2.) Modern examples — 
Peck's " Christian Perfection," pp. 365-396. 

We answer — 

1st. The Scriptures never assert that a Christian may in this 
life attain to a state in which he may live without sin. 

2d. The meaning of special passages must be interpreted in 
consistency with the entire testimony of Scripture. 

3d. The language of Scripture never implies that man may 
here live without sin. The commands of God are adjusted to 
man's responsibility, and the aspirations and prayers of the saints 
to their duties and ultimate privileges, and not to their present 
ability. Perfection is the true aim of the Christian's effort in 
every period of growth and in every act. The tenns " perfect" 



420 PERFECTIONISM. 

and " blameless" are often relative, or used to signify simple gen- 
uineness or sincerity. This is evident from the recorded fact : — 
4th. That all the perfect men of the Scriptures sometimes 
sinned ; witness the histories of Noah, Job, David, Paul, and 
compare Gen. vi., 9, with Gen. ix., 21, and Job i., 1, with Job iii., 
1, and ix., 20 ; also see Gal. ii., 11, 14; Ps. xix., 12 ; Kom. vii.; 
Gal. v., 17 ; Phil, iii., 12-14. 

36. What special objections bear against the Pelagian theory 
of perfection ? 

This is a part of a wholly Anti- Christian system. Its con- 
stituent elements are a denial of the Scripture testimony with 
regard to original sin, and the work of the Spirit of grace in 
effectual calling, and an assertion of man's ability to save him- 
self. It involves low views of the guilt and turpitude of sin, 
and of the extent, spirituality, and unchangeableness of God's 
holy law. This is the only perfectly consistent theory of perfec- 
tion ever ventilated, and in the same proportion it is the most 
thoroughly unchristian. 

37. What special objections bear against the Romish theory ? 

This theory is inconsistent — 

1st. With the true nature of sin. It denies that concupis- 
cence is sin, and admits as such only those deliberate acts of the 
will which assent to the impulse of concupiscence. It distin- 
guishes between mortal and venial sins. The truth is that every 
sin is mortal, and concupiscence, " sin dwelling in me," " law in 
ray members," is of the very essence of sin, Kom. vii., 8-23. 

2d. It is inconsistent with the nature of God's holy law, 
which is essentially immutable, and the demands of which have 
never been lowered in accommodation to the weakened faculties 
of men. 

3d. It is essentially connected with their theory of the merit 
of good works, and of the higher merit of works of supereroga- 
tion which is radically subversive of the essentials of the gospel. 

38. What special objections bear against the Oberlin theory ? 
This theory appears to assimilate more nearly than the others 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 421 

with the terrible self-consistency and the Anti-Christian spirit of 
the Pelagian view. It differs from that heresy, however, in hold- 
ing, 1st. That the law of God is, as a matter of sheer justice, 
accommodated to the weakened faculties of men. 2d. That the 
shortcomings of men in the present life, as measured by the 
original law of God, are not sin, since a man's duty is measured 
only by his ability. 3d. In making the principle of this perfec- 
tion to consist in " perfect and disinterested benevolence/' In all 
these respects, also, this theory is inconsistent with the true nature 
of God's law, the true nature of sin, and the true nature of virtue. 

39. What special objections bear against the Arminian 
theory ? 

This view, as presented by the Wesleyan standard writers, is 
far less inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Christianity 
than either of the others, and consequently it is precisely in the 
same proportion less self-consistent as a theory, and less ace urate 
in its use of technical language. These Christian brethren are to 
be honored for their exalted views, and earnest advocacy of the duty 
of pressing forward to the highest measures of Christian attain- 
ment, while it is to be for ever lamented that their great founder 
was so far misled by the prejudices of system as to bind in un- 
natural alliance so much precious truth with a theory, and termi- 
nology proper only to radical error. I will make here, once for 
all, the general explanation, that when stating the Arminian doc- 
trine on any point, I have generally preferred to refer to the form 
in which the doctrine was explicitly defined by the Dutch Ke- 
monstrants, rather than to the modified, and, as it seems to me, 
far less logically definite form in which it is set forth by the au- 
thorities of the Wesleyan churches, who properly style themselves 
"Evangelical Arminians." I attribute the peculiar theoretical 
indefiniteness which appears to render their definitions obscure, 
especially on the subjects of justification and of perfection, to the 
spirit of a warm, loving, working Christianity struggling with the 
false premises of an Arminian philosophy. 

1st. While over and over insisting upon the distinction as to 
the two-fold relation sustained by the original law of God to man 
(1.) as a rule of being and acting, (2.) as a condition of divine 
favor, their whole theory is based upon a logical confusion of these 



422 PERFECTIONISM. 

two things so distinct. Dr. Peck teaches earnestly, and confirms 
by many Wesleyan testimonies, excellent Calvinistic doctrine 
upon the following points : The original law of God is universal and 
unchangeable, its demands never can be changed nor compromised. 
Obedience to this law was the condition of the original covenant 
of works. This condition was broken by Adam, but, in our be- 
half, perfectly fulfilled by Christ, and thus the integrity of God's 
changeless law was preserved. Therefore, he goes on to argue, the 
believer is no longer under the law, but under the covenant of 
grace, i. e., to use Wesley's own qualifying parenthesis, " as the 
condition of either present or future salvation." Certainly, we j 
answer, Christ is the end of the law for us for righteousness, in 
its forensic sense, that is, to secure our justification, but surely 
Christ did not satisfy that changeless law, in our place, in such a 
sense that it does not remain our rule of action, to which it is our 
duty to be personally conformed. The question of perfection is 
one which relates to our personal character, not to our relations ; 
it is moral and inherent, and not forensic. To prove, therefore, 
what we also rejoice to believe, that the original law of God, un- 
der the gospel covenant, is no longer our condition of salvation, 
does not avail one iota towards proving that God, under the 
gospel, demands an obedience adjusted to any easier standard than 
was required before. 

2d. This theory is part of the Arminian view of the covenant 
of grace, which we regard so inconsistent with the gospel, and 
which Mr. Watson (see Institutes, Part II., Chap. XXIII.) ap- 
pears to attempt to avoid while refusing to admit the imputation 
to the believer of Christ's righteousness. This view is, that 
by Christ's propitiation, he having fulfilled the original law of 
God, it is made consistent with divine justice to present salvation 
upon easier conditions, i. e., faith and evangelical obedience; 
Christian perfection requiring nothing more than the perfect ful- 
fillment of these new gracious conditions. Now this view, besides 
confounding the ideas of law, and of covenant, of a rule, and of a 
condition, of a ground of justification, and of a standard of sanc- 
tification, is inconsistent with the broad teachings of the gospel 
concerning the righteousness of Christ, and the office of faith in 
justification. It makes the merit of Christ only in some uncer- 
tain and distant way the occasion of our salvation, and faith, and 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 423 

evangelical obedience, in the place of perfect obedience under the 
old covenant, the ground instead of the mere instrument and fruit 
of our justification. Logically developed, this theory must lead 
to the Romish doctrine as to the merit of good works. 

3d. This theory denies that mistakes and infirmities resulting 
from the effects of original sin, are themselves sin, yet admits 
that they are to be confessed, forgiveness implored for them, 
and the atonement of Christ's blood applied to them, and that 
the more perfect a man becomes the more he abhors his own in- 
ternal state. Surely this is a confusion of language, and abuse 
of the word sin. What is sin but (1.) that which transgresses 
God's original law, (2.) which needs Christ's atonement, (3.) 
which should be confessed, and must be forgiven, (4.) which lays 
a proper foundation for self-abhorrence. 

40. What express declarations of Scripture are contradicted by 
every possible modification of the theory of Christian perfection ? 

1 Kings viii., 46 ; Pro v. xx., 9 ; Eccle. vii., 20 ; James iii., 
2 ; 1 John i., 8. 

41. How may it be shown to be in opposition to the experience 
of saints, as recorded in the Scriptures ? 

See Paul's account of himself, Rom. vii., 14-25 ; Phil, iii., 
12-14. See case of David, Ps. xix., 12 ; Ps. li. ; of Moses, Ps. 
xc, 8 ; of Job, Job xlii., 5, 6 ; of Daniel, ix., 20. See Luke 
xviii., 13 ; G-al. ii., 11-13 ; vi., 1 ; James v., 16. 

42. How does it conflict ivith the ordinary experience of God's 
people ? 

. The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, 
self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, 
and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfec- 
tions which cling to him he feels to be sins, laments and strives 
to overcome them. Believers find that their life is a constant 
warfare, and they need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, 
and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the con- 
stant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only 
be designed to correct their imperfections, and to confirm their 
graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best Chris- 



424 PERFECTIONISM. 

tians have been those who have been the least prone to claim the 
attainment of perfection for themselves. 

43. What are the legitimate practical effects of perfec- 
tionism ? 

The tendency of every such doctrine must be evil, except in 
so far as it is modified or counteracted by limiting or inconsistent 
truths held in connection, which is preeminently the case with 
respect to the Wesleyan view, from the amount of pure gospel 
which in that instance the figment of perfectionism alloys. But 
perfectionism, by itself, must tend, 1st, to low views of God's 
law ; 2d, to inadequate views of the heinousness of sin ; 3d, to a 
low standard of moral excellence ; 4th, to spiritual pride and 
fanaticism. 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 

1. WJiat is the Scriptural doctrine as to the perseverance of 
the saints ? 

" They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectively 
called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally 
fall away from the state of grace ; but shall certainly persevere 
therein to the end, and be eternally saved." — Con. Faith, Chap. 
XVII. ; L. Cat., question 79. 

2. By ivhat arguments may the certainty of the final perse- 
verance of the saints be established ? 

1st. The direct assertions of Scripture, John x., 28, 29 ; Eom. 
xi., 29 ; Phil, i., 6 ; 1 Pet. i., 5. 

2d. This certainty is a necessary inference, from the Scrip- 
tural doctrine (1.) of election, Jer. xxxi., 3; Matt, xxiv., 22-24; 
Acts xiii., 48 ; Kom. viii., 30 ; (2.) of the covenant of grace, 
wherein the Father gave his people to his Son as the reward of 
his obedience and suffering, Jer. xxxii., 40 ; John xvii., 2-6 ; 
(3.) of the union of Christians with Christ, in the federal aspect 
of which Christ is their surety, and they can not fail, (Kom. viii., 
1,) and in the spiritual and vital aspect of which they abide in 
him, and because he lives they must live also, John xiv., 19 ; 
Kom. viii., 38, 39 ; Gal. ii., 20 ; (4.) of the atonement, wherein 
Christ discharged all the obligations of his people to the law as a 
covenant of life, and purchased for them all covenanted blessings ; 
if one of them should fail, therefore, the sure foundation of all 
would be shaken, Is. liii., 6, 11 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ; 
(5.) of justification, which declares all the conditions of the cove- 



426 PERSEVERANCE. 

nant of life satisfied, and sets its subject into a new relation to 
God for all future time, so that lie can not fall under condemna- 
tion, since he is not under the law, but under grace, Kom. vi., 14 ; 
(6.) of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, a as a seal by which we 
are marked as belonging to God, b as an earnest, or first install- 
ment of the promised redemption, in pledge of complete fulfill- 
ment, John xiv., 16 ; 2 Cor. i., 21, 22 ; v., 5 ; Eph. i., 14 ; (7.) 
of the prevalency of Christ's intercession, John xi., 42 ; xvii., 11, 
15, 20 ; Kom. viii., 34. 

3. What is the doctrine of the Romish Church on this subject f 

Council of Trent, Sess. VI., canon 23. " If any one main- 
tain that a man once justified can not lose grace, and, therefore, 
that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be 
accursed." 

4. What is the Arminian doctrine on this point ? 

It is an inseparable part of the Arminian system, flowing 
necessarily from their views of election, of the design and effect 
of Christ's death, and of sufficient grace and free will, that those 
who were once justified and regenerated may, by neglecting grace 
and grieving the Holy Spirit, fall into such sins as are incon- 
sistent with true justifying faith, and continuing and dying in the 
same, may consequently finally fall into perdition. — " Confession 
of the Kemonstrants," xi., 7. 

5. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine on 
the ground of the free agency of man ? 

Those who deny the certainty of the final perseverance of the 
saints hold the false theory that liberty of the will consists in in- 
difference, or the power of contrary choice, and consequently that 
certainty is inconsistent with liberty. This fallacy is disproved 
above, Chapter XVIII, see especially question 9. 

That God does govern the free acts of his creatures, as a mat- 
ter of fact, is clear from history and prophecy, from universal 
Christian consciousness and experience, and from Scripture, Acts 
ii., 23 ; Eph. i., 11 ; Phil, ii., 13 ; Prov. xxi., 1. 

That he does secure the final perseverance of his people in a 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 427 

manner perfectly consistent with their free agency is also clear. 
He changes their affections and thus determines the will by its 
own free spontaniety. He brings them into the position of children 
by adoption, surrounding them with all of the sources and instru- 
ments of sanctifying influence, and when they sin he carefully 
chastises and restores them. Hence the doctrine of Scripture is 
not that a man who has once truly believed is secure of ultimate 
salvation, subsequently feel and act as he may ; but, on the 
contrary, that God secures the ultimate salvation of every one who 
is once truly united to his Son by faith, by securing, through the 
power of the Holy Ghost, his most free perseverance in Christian 
feeling and obedience to the end. 

6. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine 
upon the ground of its supposed unfavorable influence upon 
morality ? 

The objection charged is, that this doctrine, " once in grace 
always in grace," must naturally lead to carelessness, through a 
false sense of security in our present position, and of confidence 
that God will secure our final salvation independently of our 
own agency. 

Although it is certain, on the part of God, that if we are 
elected and called, we shall be saved ; yet it requires constant 
watchfulness, and diligence, and prayer to make that calling and 
election sure to us, 2 Pet. i., 10. That God powerfully works 
with us, and therefore secures for us success in our contest with 
sin, is in Scripture urged as a powerful reason not for sloth, but 
for diligence, Phil, ii., 13. The orthodox doctrine does not affirm 
certainty of salvation because we have once believed, but cer- 
tainty of perseverance in holiness if we have truly believed, which 
perseverance in holiness, therefore, in opposition to all weaknesses 
and temptations, is the only sure evidence of the genuineness of 
past experience, or of the validity of confidence respecting future 
salvation, and surely such an assurance of certainty can not en- 
courage either carelessness or immorality. 

7. What objection to this doctrine is founded on the exhorta- 
tions to diligence ; and on the warnings of danger in case of 
carelessness addressed to believers in the Scriptures f 



428 PERSEVERANCE. 

The objection alleged is, that these exhortations and warn- 
ings necessarily imply the contingency of the believer's salvation, 
as conditioned upon the believer's continued faithfulness, and 
consequently involving liability to apostasy. 

We answer — 

1st. The outward word necessarily comes to all men alike, 
addressing them in the classes in which they regard themselves as 
standing ; and as professors, or "those who think they stand," are 
many of them self-deceived, this outward word truly implies the 
uncertainty of their position, (as far as man's knowledge goes,) 
and their liability to fall. 

2d. That Grod secures the perseverance in holiness of all his 
true people by the use of means adapted to their nature as rational 
moral and free agents. Viewed in themselves they are always, as 
God warns them, unstable, and therefore, as he exhorts them, they 
must diligently cleave to his grace. It is always true, also, that 
if they apostatize they shall be lost ; but by means of these very 
threatenings his Spirit graciously secures them from apostasy. 

8. What special texts are relied upon to rebut the arguments 
of the orthodox upon this subject ? 

Ezek. xviii., 24 ; Matt, xiii., 20, 21 ; 2 Pet. ii., 20, 21, and 
especially Heb. vi., 4^6 ; x., 26. 

All of these passages may be naturally explained in perfect 
consistency with the orthodox doctrine which is supported upon 
that wide range of Scripture evidence we have set forth above, 
question 2. They present either, 1st, hypothetical warnings of 
the consequences of apostasy with the design of preventing it, 
by showing the natural consequences of indifference and of sin, 
and the necessity for earnest care and effort ; or, 2d, they indicate 
the dreadful consequences of misimproving or of abusing the in- 
fluences of common grace, which, although involving great respon- 
sibility, nevertheless come short of a radical change of nature or 
genuine conversion. 

9. What argument do the opponents of this doctrine urge 
from Bible examples and from our own daily experience of 
apostates ? 

They cite from the Scriptures such instances as that of David 



APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 429 

and Peter, and they refer to the many examples of the apostasy 
of well-acredited professors, with which, alas ! we are all familiar. 
All these examples, however, fall evidently under one of two 
classes, either, 1st, they were from the beginning without the real 
power of godliness, although hearing so fair an appearance of life 
in the sight of their fellow-men, Kom. ii., 28 ; ix., 6 ; 1 John ii., 
19 ; Rev. iii., 1 ; or, 2d, they are true believers who, because of 
the temporary withdrawal of restraining grace, have been allowed 
to backslide for a time, while in every such case they are gra- 
ciously restored, and that generally by chastisement, Rev. iii., 19. 
Of this class were David and Peter. No true Christian is capable 
of deliberate apostasy ; his furthest departure from righteousness 
being occasioned by the sudden impulse of passion or fear, Matt, 
xxiv., 24 ; Luke xxii., 31. 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

DEATH AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

1. By what forms of expression is death described in the 
Bible t 

A departure out of this world, 2 Tim. iv., 6. A going the 
way of all the earth, Josh, xxiii., 14. A being gathered to one's 
fathers, Judges ii. ? 10 ; and to one's people, Deut. xxxii., 50. A 
dissolving the earthly house of this tabernacle, 2 Cor. v., 1. A 
returning to the dust, Eecle. xii., 7. A sleep, John xi., 11. A 
giving up the ghost, Acts, v., 10. A being absent from the body 
and present with the Lord, 2 Cor. v., 8. Sleeping in Jesus, 1 
Thess. iv., 14. 

2. What is death ? 

The suspension of the personal union between the body and 
the soul, followed by the resolution of the body into its chemical 
elements, and the introduction of the soul into that separate state 
of existence which may be assigned to it by its Creator and Judge, 
Eccle. xii., 7. 

3. How does death stand related to sin ? 

The entire penalty of the law, including all the spiritual, 
physical and eternal penal consequences of sin, is called death in 
Scripture. The sentence was, " The day thou eatest thereof thou 
shalt surely die," Gen. ii., 17 ; Rom. v., 12. That this included 
natural death is proved by Rom. v., 13, 14 ; and from the fact 
that when Christ bore the penalty of the law it was necessary for 
him to die, Heb. ix., 22. 

4. Why do the justified die ? 

Justification changes the entire federal relation of its subject 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 431 

to the law, and raises him for ever above all the penal conse- 
quences of sin. Death, therefore, while remaining a part of the 
penalty of the unsatisfied law in relation to the unjust, is like all 
other afflictions changed, in relation to the justified, into an ele- 
ment of improving discipline. It is made necessary for them from 
the present constitution of the body, while it is to both body and 
soul the gateway of heaven. They are made free from its sting 
and fear, 1 Cor. xv., 55, 57 ; Heb. ii., 15. They are now " blessed" 
in death because they die " in the Lord," Rev. xiv., 13, and they 
shall at last be completely delivered from its power when the last 
enemy shall be destroyed, 1 Cor. xv., 26. 

5. What evidence have ive of the immateriality of the soul, 
and what argument may be derived from that source in proof of 
its continued existence after death ? 

For the evidence establishing the immateriality of the soul see 
Chap. I., question 32. 

Now although the continued existence of any creature must 
depend simply upon the will of its Creator, that will may either 
be made known by direct revelation, or inferred in any particular 
instance by analogical reasoning from what is known of his doings 
in other cases. As far as this argument from analogy goes it de- 
cidedly confirms the belief that a spiritual substance is, as such, 
immortal. The entire range of human experience fails to make 
us acquainted with a single instance of the annihilation of an 
atom of matter, i. e., of matter as such. Material bodies, organ- 
ized or chemically compounded, or mere mechanical aggregations, 
we observe constantly coming into existence, and in turn passing 
away, yet never through the annihilation of their elementary con- 
stituents or component parts, but simply from the dissolution of 
that relation which these parts had temporarily sustained to each 
other. Spirit, however, is essentially simple and single, and there- 
fore incapable of that dissolution of parts to which material 
bodies are subject. We infer, therefore, that spirits are immortal 
since they can not be subject to that only form of death of which 
we have any knowledge. 

6. What argument in favor of the immortality of the soul 
may be derived from its imperfect development in this ivorld ? 



432 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

In every department of organized life every individual crea- 
ture, in its normal state, tends to grow toward a condition of 
complete development, which is the perfection of its kind. The 
acorn both prophesies and grows toward the oak. Every human 
being, however, is conscious that in this life he never attains that 
completeness which the Creator contemplated in the ideal of his 
type ; he has faculties undeveloped, capacities unfulfilled, natural 
desires unsatisfied ; he knows he was designed to be much more 
than he is, and to fill a much higher sphere. As the prophetic 
reason of the Creator makes provision for the butterfly through 
the instinct of the caterpillar, so the same Creator reveals 
the immortal existence of the soul in a higher sphere by 
means of its conscious limitations and instinctive movements 
in this. 

7. What argument on this subject may be derived from the 
distributive justice of God ? 

It is an invariable judgment of natural reason, and a funda- 
mental doctrine of the Bible, that moral good is associated with 
happiness, and moral evil with misery, by the unchangeable na- 
ture and purpose of God. But the history of all individuals and 
communities alike establishes the fact that this life is not a state 
of retribution ; that here wickedness is often associated with 
prosperity, and moral excellence with sorrow ; we must hence 
conclude that there is a future state in which all that appears at 
present inconsistent with the justice of God shall be adjusted. 
See Ps. lxxiii. 

8. How do the operations of conscience point to a future 
state f 

Conscience is the voice of God in the soul, which witnesses to 
our sinfulness and ill-desert, and to his essential justice. Ex- 
cept in the case of those who have found refuge in the righteous- 
ness of Christ, every man feels that his moral relations to God 
are never settled in this life, and hence the characteristic testi- 
mony of the human conscience, in spite of great individual dif- 
ferences as to light, sensibility, etc., has always been coinci- 
dent with the word of God, that " after death comes the judg- 
ment." 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 433 

9. How is this doctrine established by the general consent of 
mankind ? 

This has been the universal faith of all men, of all races, and 
in all ages. Universal consent, like every universal effect, 
must be referred to an equally universal cause, and this consent, 
uniform among men differing in every other possible respect, can 
be referred to no common origin other than the constitution of 
man's common nature, which is the testimony of his Maker. 

10. Show that the Old Testament teaches the same distinction 
between sold and body that is taught in the New Testament. 

1st. In the account of the creation. The body was formed 
of the dust of the earth, and the soul in the image of the Al- 
mighty, Glen, i., 26 ; ii., 7. 

2d. In the definition of death, Eccle. xii., 7. " Then shall the 
dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to 
Grod who gave it." See also Eccle. iii., 21. 

11. What does the Old Testament teach concerning Sheol ? 
and how is it shown, from the usage of that word, that the im- 
mortality of the soul was a doctrine of the ancient covenant f 

Sheol is derived from the verb Vara, to ash, expressing the sense 
of our English proverb, that the " grave crieth give, give." It is 
used in the Old Testament to signify, in a vague and general 
sense, the state of the departed, both the good and bad, interme- 
diate between death and the resurrection of the righteous, (Hosea 
xiii., 14,) generally invested with gloomy associations, and indefi- 
nitely referred to the lower parts of the earth, Deut. xxxii., 22 : 
Amos ix., 2. Thus it is used for grave as the receptacle of the 
body after death, (Gen. xxxvii., 35 ; Job xiv., 13,) but principally 
to designate the receptacle of departed spirits, without explicit 
reference to any division between the stations allotted to the 
righteous and the wicked. That they were active and conscious 
in this state appears to be indicated by what is revealed of Sam- 
uel, 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20 ; Is. xiv., 15-17. With regard to the 
good, however, the residence in Sheol was looked upon only as 
intermediate between death and a happy resurrection, Ps. xlix., 
15. In their treatment of this whole subject, the Old Testament 

28 



434 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

Scriptures rather take the continued existence of the soul for 
granted, than explicitly assert it. — Fairbairn's Herm. Manual ; 
Josephus' Ant., XVIII., 1. 

12. What is the purport of our Saviour's argument on this 
subject against the Sadducees f 

Luke xx., 37, 38. Long after the death of Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob, Jehovah designated himself to Moses as their God, Ex. 
iii., 6. But, argues Christ against the Sadducee who denied the 
resurrection of the dead, " he is the God, not of the dead, but of 
the living/' This more immediately proves the immortality of 
their souls, but as God is the covenant God of persons, and as 
the persons of these patriarchs included alike body and soul, this 
argument likewise establishes the ultimate immortality of the 
body also, *. e., of the entire person. 

13. What passages of the Old Testament assert or imply the 
hope of a state of blessedness after death ? 

Num. xxiii, 10 ; Job xix., 26, 27 ; Ps. xvi., 9-11 ; xvii., 15 ; 
xlix., 14, 15 ; lxxiii., 24-26 ; Is. xxv., 8 ; xxvi., 19 ; Hosea xiii., 
14 ; Dan. xii., 2, 3, 13. 

14. What other evidence does the Old Testament afford of the 
continued existence of the soul ? 

1st. The translations of Enoch and Elijah, and the temporary 
reappearance of Samuel, Gen. v., 24 ; Heb. xi., 5 ; 2 Kings ii., 
11 ; 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20. 

2d. The command to abstain from the arts of necromancy 
implies the prevalent existence of a belief that the dead still 
continue in being in another state, Deut. xviii., 11, 12. 

3d. In their symbolical system Canaan represents the perma- 
nent inheritance of Christ's people, and the entire purpose of the 
whole Old Testament revelation, as apprehended by Old Testa- 
ment believers, had respect to a future existence and inheritance 
after death. This is directly asserted in the New Testament, Acts 
xxvi., 6-8 ; Heb. xi., 10-16 ; Eph. i., 14. 

15. What does the New Testament teach of the state of the 
soul immediately after death ? 



STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 435 

"The souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness, 
are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face 
of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their 
bodies/' Luke xxiii., 43 ; 2 Cor. v., 6, 8 ; Phil, i., 23, 24. " And 
the souls of unbelievers are cast into hell, where they remain in 
torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the last 
day," Luke xvi., 23, 24 ; Jude v., 6, 7 

16. What is the signification and usage of the word atdrjg, 
Hades, in Scripture ? 

"Atdrjg, from a primitive, and Idsiv, designates generally the in- 
visible world inhabited by the spirits of dead men. Among the 
ancient classical heathen, this invisible world was regarded as con- 
sisting of two contrasted regions, the one called Elysium, the 
abode of the blessed good, and the other Tartarus, the abode of 
the vicious and miserable. 

It was used by the authors of the Septuagint to translate the 
Hebrew word Sheol, compare Acts ii., 27, and Ps. xvi., 10. In 
the New Testament this word occurs only eleven times, Matt, xi., 
23 ; xvi., 18 ; Luke x., 15 ; xvi., 23 ; Acts, ii., 27, 31 ; 1 Cor. 
xv., 55 ; Rev. i., 18 ; vi., 8 ; xx., 13, 14. In every case, except 
1 Cor. xv., 55, where the more critical editions of the original 
substitute the word Odvare in the place of adr), hades is trans- 
lated hell, and certainly always represents the invisible world as 
under the dominion of Satan, as opposed to the kingdom of Christ, 
and as finally subdued under his victorious power. See Fair- 
bairn's Herm. Manuel. 

17. What is the signification and usage of the words -nagd- 
dsLoog and yhvva ? 

Hapddsioog, Paradise, derived from some oriental language, 
and adopted into both the Hebrew and Greek languages, signifies 
parks, pleasure gardens, Neb. ii., 8 ; Eccle. ii., 5. The Septu- 
gint translators use this word to represent the garden of Eden, 
Gen. ii., 8, etc. It occurs only three times in the New Testa- 
ment, Luke xxiii., 43 ; 2 Cor. xii., 4 ; Rev. ii., 7 ; where the 
context proves that it refers to the " third heavens," the garden 
of the Lord, in which grows the " tree of life," which is by the 
river which flows out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, Rev. 
xxii., 1, 2. 



436 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

Teewa is a compound Hebrew word, expressed in Greek letters, 
signifying " Valley of Hinnom, Josh. xv. ; 8, skirting Jerusalem 
on the south, running westward from the valley of Jehosaphat, 
under Mount Zion. Here was established the idolatrous worship 
of Moloch, to whom infants were burned in sacrifice, 1 Kings xi., 
7. This worship was broken up and the place desecrated by Jo- 
siah, 2 Kings xxiii., 10-14, after which it appears to have be- 
come the receptacle for all the filth of the city, and of the dead 
bodies of animals, and of malefactors, to consume which fires 
would appear to have been from time to time kept up, hence 
called Tophet, an abomination, a vomit, Jer. vii., 31." — Robin- 
son's Greek Lex. By a natural figure, therefore, this word was 
used to designate the place of final punishment, forcibly carrying 
with it the idea of pollution and misery. It occurs twelve times 
in the New Testament, and always to signify the place of final 
torment, Matt, v., 22, 29, 30 ; x., 28 ; xviii., 9 ; xxiii., 15, 33 ; 
Mark ix., 43, 47 ; Luke xii., 5 ; James iii., 6. 

18. What various vieivs are maintained as to the intermedi- 
ate state of the souls of men betiveen death and the judgment ? 

1st. Many Protestants, especially of the Church of England, 
retaining the classical sense of the word Hades, as equivalent to 
the Jewish Sheol, (as given above, question 11), hold tha.t there is 
an intermediate region, consisting of two distinct departments, in 
which the disembodied souls, both of the lost and of the redeemed, 
respectively await the resurrection of their bodies, the award of 
judgment, and their translation to their final abodes of bliss or 
misery. 

2d. The Komanists hold the above view, modified by their 
doctrine of purgatory. See below, question 20. 

3d. Materialists and some Socinians hold that the souls of 
men remain in a state of unconsciousness from death until the 
moment of the resurrection. The only positive argument they 
are able to advance in favor of this view is, that we know nothing 
by experience, and hence are utterly unable to conceive of a state 
of conscious intelligent activity, when the soul is separated from 
the body. Archbishop Whately, on most subjects so judicious, 
has advocated this view in his " View of Sc. Rev. concerning a 
Future State/' 



STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 437 

19. How may it be proved that the souls of believers do im- 
mediately pass into glory ? 

The view held by the great majority of evangelical Christians, 
(see above, question 15,) includes these two points — 

1st. The souls both of believers and of the reprobate continue 
after death both conscious and active, though until the resurrec- 
tion separated from their bodies. 

2d. The souls of believers are present with the person of 
Christ, and enjoy bright revelations of God and the society of 
holy angels ; the souls of the reprobate being in the place as- 
signed to the devil and his angels. Nevertheless it is also held 
that, as the complete man consists both of soul and body, the 
souls of the blessed during the interval between their death and 
the resurrection, although with Christ, and inconceivably happy, 
have not attained to the perfection of either the glory or blessed- 
ness which is designed for them in Christ. This highest state of 
all must await the redemption of their bodies, and of their pur- 
chased possession, and the restitution of all things. 

This hope of Christians in both of the above points appears 
to be abundantly established by the following Scriptures : The 
reappearance of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20. The appearance 
of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration of Christ, Matt, xvii., 3. 
Christ's address to the thief upon the cross, Luke xxiii., 43. The 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi., 23, 24. The 
prayer of dying Stephen, Acts vii., 59. Paul's dilemma, 2 Cor. 
v. 1-8 ; Phil, i., 23, 24 ; 1 Thes. v., 10. See also Eph. iii., 15 ; 
Heb. vi., 12, 20 ; Kev. v., 9 ; vi., 9-11 ; vii., 9 ; xiv, 1, 3. 

20. What do Romanists teach with regard to the soids of 
men after death ? 

1st. That the souls of unbaptized infants go to a place pre- 
pared expressly for them, called the " limbus infantum," where 
they endure no positive suffering, although they do not enjoy the 
vision of God. 

2d. That all unbaptized adults, and all those who subsequently 
have lost the grace of baptism by mortal sin, and die unreconciled 
to the church, go immediately to hell. 

3d. That those believers who have attained to a state of Chris- 
tian perfection go immediately to heaven. 






438 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

4th. That the great mass of partially sanctified Christians dying 
in fellowship with the church, yet still encumbered with imper- 
fections, go to purgatory, where they suffer, more or less intensely, 
for a longer or shorter period, until their sins are both atoned for 
and purged out, when they are translated to heaven, during which 
intermediate period they may be efficiently assisted by the prayers 
and labors of their friends on earth. 

5th. That Old Testament believers were gathered into a region 
called " limbus patrum" where they remained without the bea- 
tific vision of God, yet without suffering, until Christ, during 
the three days in which his body lay in the grave, came and 
released them, 1 Pet. iii., 19, 20. — Cat. Kom., Part I., Chapter 
VI., question 3 ; Council of Trent, Sess. XX Y de Purgatorio. 

The Council of Trent settled only two points, 1st, that there 
is a purgatory ; 2d, that souls therein may be benefited by the 
prayers and mass of the church on earth. 

It is generally held, however, that its pains are both negative 
and positive. That the instrument of its sufferings is material 
fire. That these are dreadful and indefinite in extent. That 
satisfaction may be rendered in this world on much easier terms. 
That while their souls can neither incur guilt nor merit any thing 
they can alone render satisfaction for their sins by means of pas- 
sive sufferings. 

They confess that this doctrine is not taught directly in Scrip- 
ture, but maintain, 1st, that it follows necessarily from their gen- 
eral doctrine of the satisfaction for sins ; 2d, that Christ and the 
apostles taught it incidentally as they did infant baptism, etc. 
They refer to Matt, xii., 32 ; 1 Cor. iii., 15. 

21. Sow may the Anti-Christian character of this doctrine 
be shown ? 

1st. It confessedly has no direct, and obviously has true foun- 
dation in Scripture. This consideration alone suffices. 

2d. It proceeds upon an entirely unchristian view of the 
method of satisfying divine justice for sins. (1.) That while 
Christ's merits are infinite, they atone only for original sins. (2.) 
That each believer must make satisfaction in his own person for 
sins which he commits after baptism, either in the pains of pen- 
ance or of purgatory. This is contrary to all the Scriptures teach, 



STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 



439 



as we have above shown under their respective heads, (1.) as to 
the satisfaction rendered to justice by Christ ; (2.) the nature of 
justification ; (3.) nature of sin ; (4.) relation of the sufferings 
and good works of the justified man to the law ; (5.) state of the 
souls of believers after death, etc., etc. 

3d. It is a heathen doctrine derived from the Egyptians 
through the Greeks and Komans, and currently received through 
the Roman empire. — Virgil's Eneid, vi., 739, 43. 

4th. Its .practical effects have always been, 1st, the abject sub- 
jection of the people to the priesthood; 2d, the gross demoralization 
of the people. The church is the self-appointed depository and 
dispenser of the superabundant merits of Christ, and the super- 
erogatory merits of her eminent saints. On this foundation she 
dispenses the pains of purgatory to those who pay for past sins, 
or sells indulgences to those who pay for the liberty to sin in the 
future. Thus the people sin and pay, and the priest takes the 
money and remits the penalty. The figment of a purgatory un- 
der the control of the priest is the main source of his hold upon 
the fears of the people. 



C HAP T E R XXXV. 

THE RESURRECTION. 

1. What is the meaning of the phrase. " resurrection of the 
dead," and " from the dead" as used in Scripture ? 

'Avdaraaig signifies etyniologicalry "a rising or raising up./' 
It is used in Scripture to designate the future general raising, by 
the power of God, of the bodies of all men from the sleep of 
death. 

2. What Old Testament passages bear upon this subject ? 
Job xix., 25-27 ; Ps. xlix., 15 ; Is. xxvi., 19 ; Dan. xii., 1-3. 

3. What are the principal passages bearing upon this subject 
in the New Testament f 

Matt, v., 29 ; x., 28 ; xxvii., 52, 53 ; John v., 28, 29 : vi., 
39 ; Acts ii, 25-34 : xiii., 34 ; Eom. viii, 11, 22, 23 ; Phil, iii., 
20, 21 ; 1 Thess. iv., 13-17, and 15th chap, of 1 Cor. 

4. What is the meaning of the phrases, o&fia ibvxiKov, natural 
body, and ow\ia -vey/ia-mov, spiritual body, as used by Paul, 1 
Cor. xv., 44 ? 

The word ipvxrj, when contrasted with -vlv\La, always desig- 
nates the principle of animal life, as distinguished from the prin- 
ciple of intelligence and moral agency, which is the nveupa. A 
(jtifia ifwxuzbV) translated natural body, evidently means a body 
endowed with animal life, and adapted to the present condition 
of the soul, and to the present physical constitution of the world 
it inhabits. A g&w TTvevfiariKov, translated spiritual body, is a 
body adapted to the use of the soul in its future glorified estate, 
and to the moral and physical conditions of the heavenly world, 



LITERAL RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 441 

and to this end assimilated by the Holy Ghost, who dwells in it ; 
to the glorified body of Christ, 1 Cor. xv., 45-48. 

5. Eow does it appear that the same body is to rise that is 
deposited in the grave ? 

The passages of Scripture which treat of this subject make it 
plain that the same bodies are to be raised that are deposited in 
the grave, by the phrases by which they designate the bodies 
raised : 1st, " our bodies," Phil, iii., 21 ; 2d, " this corruptible/' 
1 Cor. xv., 53, 54 ; 3d, " all who are in their graves," John v., 
28 ; 4th, " they who are asleep," 1 Thess. iv., 13-17; 5th, "our 
bodies are the members of Christ," 1 Cor. vi., 15 ; 6th, our 
resurrection is to be because of and like that of Christ, which was 
of his identical body, John xx., 27. 

6. Hoiu does it appear that the final resurrection is to be 
simultaneous and general ? 

See below, Chap. XXXVL, questions 9 and 10. 

7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of the 
resurrection body t 

1st. It is to be spiritual, 1 Cor. xv., 44. See above, question 
4. 2d. It is to be like Christ's body, Phil, iii., 21. 3d. Glori- 
ous, incorruptible and powerful, 1 Cor. xv., 54. 4th. It shall 
never die, Kev. xxi, 4. 5th. Never be given in marriage, Matt, 
xxii., 30. 

8. How may it be proved that the material body of Christ 
i*ose from the dead ? 

1st. Christ predicted it, John ii., 19-21. 2d. His resurrection 
is referred to as a miraculous attestation of the truth of his mis- 
sion, but unless his body rose literally there was nothing miracu- 
lous in his continued life. 3d. The whole language of the in- 
spired narratives necessarily implies this, the roiling away of the 
stone, the folding up of the garments, etc. 4th. He did not rise 
until the third day, which proves that it was a physical change, 
and not a mere continuance of spiritual existence, 1 Cor. xv., 4 
5th. His body was seen, handled and examined, for the space of 



442 THE RESURRECTION. 

forty days, in order to establish this very fact, Luke xxiv., 39. — 
Dr. Hodge. 

9. How can the materiality of Christ's resurrection body be 
reconciled with what is said as to the modes of its manifestation, 
and of its ascension into heaven ? 

The events of his suddenly appearing and vanishing from 
sight, recorded in Luke xxiv., 31 ; John xx., 19 ; Acts i., 9, were 
accomplished through a miraculous interference with the ordinary 
laws regulating material bodies, of the same kind precisely with 
many miracles which Jesus wrought in his body before his death, 
e. g., his walking on the sea, Matt, xiv., 25 ; John vi., 9-14. 

10. Sow does the resurrection of Christ secure and illustrate 
that of his people ? 

Body and soul together constitute the one person, and man 
in his entire person, and not his soul separately, is embraced in 
both the covenants of works and of grace, and in federal and vital 
union with both the first and the second Adam. Christ's resur- 
rection secures ours, 1st, because his resurrection seals and con- 
summates his redemptive power ; and the redemption of our per- 
sons involves the redemption of our bodies, Eom. viii., 23. 2d. 
Because of our federal and vital union with Christ, 1 Cor. xv., 
21, 22 ; 1 Thess. iv., 14. 3d. Because of his Spirit, which dwells 
in us, (Rom. viii., 11,) making our bodies his members, 1 Cor. vi., 
15. 4th. Because Christ by covenant is Lord both of the living 
and the dead, Rom. xiv., 9. This same federal and vital union 
of the Christian with Christ (see above, Chap. XXVIII.) like- 
wise causes the resurrection of the believer to be similar to, as 
well as consequent upon that of Christ, 1 Cor. xv., 49 ; Phil, iii., 
21; 1 John iii., 2. 

11. How far are objections of a scientific character against 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entitled to weight ? 

All truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent, 
whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or of the 
words of inspiration On the other hand, it follows from our par- 
tial knowledge and often erroneous interpretation of the data both 
of science and revelation, that we often are unable to discern the 



SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS. 443 

harmonies of truths in reality intimately related. Nothing can 
be believed to bo true which is clearly seen to be inconsistent with 
truth already certainly established. But, on the other hand, in 
the present stage of our development, the largest proportion of 
the materials of our knowledge rests upon independent evidence, 
and are received by us all as certain on their own respective 
grounds, although we tail as yet to reconcile each fact with every 
other in the harmonies of their higher laws. The principles of 
physical science are to be taken as true upon their own ground, 
i. e. } so far as they are matured, and the testimony of revelation 
is to be taken as infallible truth on its own ground. The one 
may modify our interpretation of the other, but the most certain 
of all principles is that a matured science will always corroborate 
rightly interpreted revelation. 

12. How may the identity of our future with our present 
bodies be reconciled ivith 1 Cor. xv., 42-50 ? 

In verses 42-44 this identity is expressly asserted. The body 
is to be the same, though changed in these several particulars. 
1st. It is noiv subject to corruption, then incorruptible. 2d. It 
is now dishonored, it will then be glorified. 3d. It is now weak, 
it will then be powerful. 4th. It is now natural, i. e., adapted 
to the present condition of the soul and constitution of the world. 
It will then be spiritual, i. e., adapted to the glorified condition 
of the soul, and constitution of the " new heavens and new earth.'" 

Verse 50 declares simply that " flesh and blood," that is, the 
present corruptible, weak, and depraved constitution of the body 
can not inherit heaven. Yet the passage as a whole clearly teaches 
not the substitution of a new body but the transformation of 
the old. 

13. Wliat facts does physiological science establish ivith re- 
spect to the perpetual changes that are going on in our present 

and what relation do these facts sustain to this doctrine ? 



By a ceaseless process of the assimilation of new material and 
excretion of the old, the particles composing our bodies are cease- 
lessly changing from birth to death, effecting, as it is computed, 
a change in every atom of the entire structure every seven years. 



444 THE RESURRECTION. 

Thus there will not be a particle in the organism of an adult 
which constituted part of his person when a hoy, nor in that of 
the old man of that which belonged to him when of middle age. 
The body from youth to age is universally subject to vast changes 
in size, form, expression, condition, and many times to total 
change of constituent particles. All this is certain ; but it is 
none the less certain that through all these changes the man pos- 
sesses identically the same person from youth to age. This 
proves that neither the identity of the body of the same man from 
youth to age, nor the identity of our present with our resurrection 
bodies consist in sameness of particles. If we are sure of our 
identity in the one case, we need not stumble at the difficulties 
attending the other. 

14. What objection to this doctrine is derived from the known 
fact of the dispersion and assimilation into other organisms of 
the particles of our bodies after death ? 

The instant the vital principle surrenders the elements of the 
body to the unmodified control of the laws of chemical affinity, 
their present combinations are dissolved and distributed through- 
out space, and they are taken up and assimilated by other animal 
and vegetable organisms. Thus the same particles have formed, 
at different times, part of the bodies of myriads of men, in the 
successive periods of the growth of individuals, and in successive 
generations. Hence it has been objected to the scriptural doc- 
trine of the resurrection of the body, that it will be impossible 
to decide to which of the thousand bodies which these particles 
have formed part in turn, they should be assigned in the resur- 
rection ; or to reinvest each soul with its own body, when all the 
constituent elements of every body have been shared in common 
by many. We answer that bodily identity does not consist in 
sameness of constituent particles. See above, question 13. Just 
as God has revealed to us through consciousness that our bodies 
are identical from infancy to age, although their constituent ele- 
ments often change, he has, with equal certainty and reasonable- 
ness, revealed to us in his inspired word that our bodies, raised in 
glory, are identical with our bodies sown in dishonor, although 
their constituent particles may have been scattered to the ends 
of the earth. 



PERSONAL IDENTITY. 445 

15. What is essential to identity f 

1st. " It is evident that identity depends upon different condi- 
tions in different cases. The identity of a stone or any other por- 
tion of unorganized matter consists in its substance and form. On 
the other hand ? the identity of a plant from the seed to its maturity 
is, in a great measure, independent of sameness of substance or of 
form. Their identity appears to consist in each plant's being one 
organized whole, and in the continuity of the succession of its 
elements and parts. The identity of a picture does not depend 
upon the sameness of the particles of coloring matter of which it 
is composed, for these we may conceive to be continually chang- 
ing, but upon the drawing, the tints, the light and shade, the 
expression, the idea which it embodies/' etc. 

2d. Bodily identity is not a conclusion drawn from the com- 
parison, or combination of other facts, but it is itself a single irre- 
solvable fact of consciousness. The child, the savage, the philo- 
sopher, are alike certain of the sameness of their bodies at different 
periods of their lives, and on the same grounds. This intuitive 
conviction, as it is not the result of science, so it is no more bound 
to give an account of itself to science, i. e., we are no more called 
upon to explain it before we believe it than we are to explain any 
other of the simple data of consciousness. 

3d. The resurrection of our bodies, although a certain fact of 
revelation, is to us, as yet, an unrealized experience, an unob- 
served phenomenon. The physical conditions, therefore, of the 
identity of our " spiritual bodies" with our " natural bodies," we 
can not now possibly comprehend, since we have neither the ex- 
perience, the observation, nor the revelation of the facts involved 
in such knowledge. This much, however, is certain as to the re- 
sult, 1st. The body of the resurrection will be as strictly identical 
with the body of death, as the body of death is with the body of 
birth. 2d. Each soul will have an indubitable intuitive con- 
sciousness that its new body is identical with the old. 3d. Each 
friend shall recognize the individual characteristics of the soul in 
the perfectly transparent expression of the new body.— Dr. Hodge. 

16. How far was the doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
held by the Jews ? 

With the exception of some heretical sects, as the Sadducees, 



446 THE RESURRECTION. 

the Jews held this doctrine in the same sense in which we hold it 
now. This is evident, 1st, Because it was clearly revealed in their 
inspired writings, see ahove, question 2. 2d. It is affirmed in 
their uninspired writings, Wisdom, iii., 6, 13 ; iv., 15 ; 2 Mac- 
cabees vii., 9, 14, 23, 29. 3d. Christ in his discources, instead of 
proving this doctrine, assumes it as recognized, Luke xiv., 14 ; 
John v., 28, 29. 4th. Paul asserts that both the ancient Jews, 
(Heb. xi., 35,) and his own cotemporaries, (Acts xxiv., 15,) be- 
lieved this doctrine. 

17. What early heretical sects in the Christian church re- 
jected this doctrine ? 

All the sects bearing the generic designation of gnostic, and un- 
der various specific names embodying the leaven of oriental phil- 
osophy, which infested the church of Christ from the beginning 
for many centuries, believed, 1st, that matter is essentially vile, 
and the source of all sin and misery to the soul ; 2d, that com- 
plete sanctification is consummated only in the dissolution of the 
body and the emancipation of the soul ; 3d, that consequently any 
literal resurrection of the body is repugnant to the spirit, and 
would be destructive to the purpose of the whole gospel. 

18. What is the doctrine taught by Sivedenborg on this subject 1 

It is substantially the same with that set forth by Professor 
Bush in his once famous book, " Anastasia." They teach that 
the literal body is dissolved, and finally perishes in death. But 
by a subtle law of our nature an etherial, luminous body is elim- 
inated out of the i\)v%r\ (the seat of the nervous sensibility, oc- 
cupying the middle link between matter and spirit), so that the 
soul does not go forth from its tabernacle of flesh a bare power of 
thought, but is clothed upon at once by this psychical body. 
This resurrection of the body, they pretend, takes place in every 
case immediately at death, and accompanies the outgoing soul. 

19. How do modern rationalists explain the passages of 
Scripture which relate to this subject ? 

They explain them away, denying their plain sense, either, 1st, 
as purely allegorical modes of inculcating the truth of the con- 
tinued existence of the soul after death ; or, 2d, as concessions to 
the prejudices and superstitions of the Jews. 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT. 

1. What it the meaning of the expressions " the coming," or 
"the day of the Lord," as used in both the Old and New Testa- 
ments ? 

1st. For any special manifestation of God's presence and 
power, John xiv. ; 18, 23 ; Is. xiii., 6 ; Jer. xlvi., 10. 2d. By 
way of eminence. (1.) In the Old Testament, for the coming 
of Christ in the flesh, and the abrogation of the Jewish economy, 
Malachi iii., 2 ; iv., 5. (2.) In the New Testament, for the 
second and final coming of Christ. 

The several terms referring to this last great event are, 1st, 
dnoicdXvipu;, revelation, 1 Cor. i., 7 ; 2 Thess. i., 7 ; 1 Pet. i., 
7, 13 ; iv., 13. 2d. irapovala, presence, advent, Matt, xxiv., 3, 27, 
37, 39 ; 1 Cor. xv., 23 ; 1 Thess. ii., 19 ; iii., 13 ; iv., 15 ; v., 23 ; 2 
Thess. ii., 1-9 ; James v., 7, 8 ; 2 Pet. i., 16 ; iii., 4, 12 ; 1 John 
ii., 28. 3d. cmcpdvEta,, appearance, manifestation, 2 Thess. ii.,, 
8 ; 1 Tim. vi., 14 ; 2 Tim. iv., 1, 8 ; Titus ii., 13. 

The time of that coming is designated as " the day of God," 
2 Pet. iii., 12. " The day of the Lord," 1 Thess. v., 2. " The 
day of the Lord Jesus, and of Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. i,, 8 ; Phil, 
i., 6, 10 ; 2 Pet. iii., 10. " That day," 2 Thess. i., 10; 2 Tim. 
i., 12, 18. " The last day," John vi., 39-54. " The great day," 
" the day of wrath," and " of judgment," and " of revelation," 
Jude 6 ; Eev. vi., 17 ; Kom. ii., 5 ; 2 Pet. ii., 9. 

Christ is called 6 egx^vog, the coming one, with reference to 
both advents, Matt, xxi., 9 ; Luke vii., 19, 20 ; xix., 38 ; John 
iii., 31 ; Kev. i., 4; iv. 8 ; xi., 17. 

2. Present the evidence that a literal personal advent of Christ 
still future is taught in the Bible. 



448 SECOND ADVENT. 

1st. The anology of the first advent. The prophecies relating 
to the one having been literally fulfilled by a personal coming, 
we may be certain that the perfectly similar prophecies relating 
to the other will be fulfilled in the same sense. 

2d. The language of Christ predicting such advent admits of 
no other rational interpretation. The coming itself, its manner 
and purpose, are alike defined. He is to be attended with the 
hosts of heaven, in power and great glory. He is to come upon 
the occasion of the general resurrection and judgment, and for 
the purpose of consummating his mediatorial work, by the final 
condemnation and perdition of all his enemies, and by the acknowl- 
edgment and completed glorification of all his friends, Matt, 
xvi., 27 ; xxiv., 30 ; xxv., 31 ; xxvi., 64 ; Mark viii, 38 ; Luke 
xxi., 27. 

3d. The apostles understood these predictions to relate to a 
literal advent of Christ in person. They teach their disciples 
to form the habit of constantly looking forward to it, as a solem- 
nizing motive to fidelity, and to encouragement and resignation 
under present trials. They teach that his coming will be visible 
and glorious, accompanied with the abrogation of the present 
gospel dispensation, the destruction of his enemies, the glorifica- 
tion of his friends, the conflagration of the world, and the appear- 
ance of the " new heaven and new earth." See the passages quoted 
under the preceding chapter, and Acts, i., 11 ; iii., 19-21 ; 1 Cor. 
iv., 5 ; xi., 26 ; xv., 23 ; Heb. ix., 28 ; x., 37.— Dr. Hodge's 
Lecture. 

3. What three modes of interpretation have been adopted in 
reference to Matt, xxiv and xxv. ? 

" It is to be remarked that these chapters contain an answer 
to three distinct questions. 1st. When the temple and city were 
to be destroyed. 2d. What were to be the signs of Christ's com- 
ing ? 3d. The third question related to the end of the world. 
The difficulty consists in separating the portions relating to these 
several questions. There are three methods adopted in the ex- 
planation of these chapters. 1st. The first assumes that they 
refer exclusively to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, and the 
establishment and progress of the gospel. 2d. The second assumes 
that what is here said has been fulfilled in one sense in the des- 



FACT CLEARLY REVEALED. 449 

traction of Jerusalem, and is to be fulfilled in a higher sense at 
the last day. 3d. The third supposes that some portions refer 
exclusively to the former event and others exclusively to the lat- 
ter. It is plain that the first view is untenable, and whether the 
second or third view be adopted, the obscurity resting upon this 
passage can not properly be allowed to lead us to reject the clear 
and constant teaching of the New Testament with regard to the 
second personal and visible advent of the Son of G-od." — Dr. 
Hodge. 

4. In ivhat passages is the time of Christ's second advent de- 
clared to be unknown t 

Matt, xxiv, 36 ; Mark xiii., 32 ; Luke xii., 40 ; Acts i., 6, 7 ; 
1 Thess. v., 1-3 ; 2 Pet. iii., 3, 4, 10 ; Rev. xvi., 15. 

5. What ptassages are commonly cited in proof that the apos- 
tles expected the second advent during their lives ? 

Phil, i., 6 ; 1 Thess. iv, 15 ; Heb. x., 25 ; 1 Pet. i., 5 ; 

James v., 8. 

6. How may it be shown that they did not entertain such an 
expectation / 

1st. The apostles, as individuals, apart from their public 
capacity as inspired teachers, were subject to the common preju- 
dices of their age and nation, and only gradually were brought 
to the full knowledge of the truth. During Christ's life they ex- 
pected that he would establish his kingdom in its glory at that 
time, Luke xxiv, 21 ; and after his resurrection the first question 
they asked him was, " Wilt thou at this time restore the king- 
dom to Israel ?" 

2d. In their inspired writings they have never taught that the 
second coming of their Lord was to occur in their life-time, or at 
any fixed time whatever. They only taught (1.) that it ought to- 
be habitually desired, and (2.) since it is uncertain as to time,, 
that it should always be regarded as imminent. 

3d. As further revelations were vouchsafed to them, they 
learned, and explicitly taught, that the time of the second advent 
was not only uncertain, but that many events, still future,. must 

29 



450 SECOND ADVENT. 

previously occur, e. g. y the anti-Christian apostasy, the preaching 
of the gospel to every nation, the fullness of the Gentiles, the con- 
version of the Jews, the rnillenial prosperity of the church, and 
the final defection, Kom. xi., 15-32 ; 2 Cor. iii., 15, 16 ; 2 Thess. 
ii., 3. This is clear, because the coming of Christ is declared to 
be attended with the resurrection of the dead, the general judg- 
ment, the general conflagration, and the restitution of all things. 
See below, question 9. 

7. What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning the millenium ? 
1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, 

clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all 
branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and 
more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized in 
time past. This end is to be gradually attained through the spir- 
itual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence, 
and ministrations of his church, Matt, xiii., 31, 32 ; xxviii., 19, 
20 ; Ps. ii., 7, 8 ; xxii., 27, 29 ; lxxii., 8-11 ; Is. ii., 2, 3 ; xi., 6-9 ; 
lx., 12 ; lxvi., 23 ; Dan. ii., 35, 44 ; Zech. ix., 10 ; xiv., 9 ; Eev. 
xi., 15. 

2d. The period of this general prevalency of the gospel will 
continue a thousand years, and is hence designated the millenium, 
Rev. xx., 2-7. 

3d. The Jews are to be converted to Christianity either at the 
commencement or during the continuance of this period, Zech. 
xii., 10 ; xiii., 1 ; Rom. xi., 26-29 ; 2 Cor. iii., 15, 16. 

4th. At the end of these thousand years, and before the com- 
ing of Christ, there will be a comparatively short season of apos- 
tasy and violent conflict between the kingdoms of light and dark- 
ness, Luke xvii., 26-30 ; 2 Pet. iii., 3, 4 ; Rev. xx., 7-9. 

5th. Christ's advent, the general resurrection and judgment, 
will be simultaneous, and immediately succeeded by the burning 
of the old, and the revelation of the new earth and heavens. 
Confession of Faith Chapts. XXXII and XXXIII. 

8. WJiat is the view of those who maintain that Christ's com- 
ing will Jje " premillenial," and that he xoill reign personally 
upon tjie earth a tlwusand years before the judgment f 

1st. Many of the Jews, mistaking altogether the spiritual char- 
acter of the Messiah's kingdom, entertained the opinion that as 



PREMILLENIAL THEORY. 451 

the church had continued two thousand years before the giving 
of the law, so it would continue two thousand years under the 
law, when the Messiah would commence his personal reign, which 
should, in turn, continue two thousand years to the commence- 
ment of the eternal Sabbath. They expected that the Messiah 
would reign visibly and gloriously in Jerusalem, as his capital, 
over all the nations of the earth, the Jews, as his especial people, 
being exalted to preeminent dignity and privilege. 

2d. The majority of the early fathers of the Christian church 
adopted this view in its essential elements, adapting it to the 
literal interpretation of Eev. xx., 1-10. They held, 1st. That 
after the development of the Anti-Christian apostasy, at some 
time very variously estimated, Christ was suddenly to appear and 
commence his personal reign of a thousand years in Jerusalem. 
The dead in Christ (some say only the martyrs) were then to rise 
and reign with him in the world, the majority of whose inhabitants 
shall be converted, and live during this period in great prosperity 
and happiness, the Jews in the mean time being converted, and 
restored to their own land. (2.) That after the thousand years 
there shall come the final apostasy for a little season, and then 
the resurrection of the rest of the dead, i. e., the wicked and their 
judgment and condemnation at the last day, the final conflagra- 
tion, and new heavens and earth. 

3d. Modern premillenarians, while differing among themselves 
as to the details of their interpretations, agree substantially with 
the view just stated. Hence they are called Premillenarians, be- 
cause they believe the advent of Christ will occur before the 
Millenium. 

9. What are the principal Scriptural arguments against this 
view t 

1st. The theory is evidently Jewish in its origin and Jew- 
daizing in its tendency. 

2d. It is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach. (1.) 
As to the nature of Christ's kingdom, e. g., a that it is not of 
this world but spiritual, Matt, xiii., 11-44 ; John xviii., 36 ; 
Kom. xiv., 17 ; b that it was not to be confined to the Jews, 
Matt, viii., 11, 12 ; c that regeneration is the condition of admis- 
sion to it, John iii., 3,5; d that the blessings of the kingdom are 



452 SECOND ADVENT. 

purely spiritual, as pardon, sanctification, etc., Matt, iii., 2, 11 ; 
Col. i., 13, 14. (2.) As to the fact that the kingdom of Christ 
has already come. He has sat upon the throne of his Father 
David ever since his ascension, Acts ii., 29-36 ; iii., 13-15 ; 
iv., 26-28 ; v., 29-31 ; Heb. x., 12, 13 ; Rev. iii., 7-12. The 
Old Testament prophecies, therefore, which predict this kingdom 
must refer to the present dispensation of grace, and not to a 
future reign of Christ on earth in person among men in the flesh. 

3d. The second advent is not to occur until the resurrection, 
when all the dead, both good and bad, are to rise at once, Dan. 
xii., 2 ; John v., 28, 29 ; 1 Cor. xv., 23 ; 1 Thes. iv., 16 ; Rev. 
xx., 11-15. Only one passage, (Rev. xx., 1-10,) is even appar- 
ently inconsistent with the fact here asserted. For the true inter- 
pretation of that passage see next question. 

4th. The second advent is not to occur until the simultaneous 
judgment of all men, the good and the bad together, Matt, vii., 
21, 23 ; xiii., 30-43 ; xvi., 24, 27 ; xxv., 31-46 ; Rom. ii., 5, 16; 
1 Cor. iii., 12-15 ; 2 Cor. v., 9-11 ; 2 Thes. i., 6-10 ; Rev. xx., 
11-15. 

5th. The second advent is to be attended with the general 
conflagration, and the generation of the " new heavens and the 
new earth/' 2 Pet. iii., 7-13 ; Rev. xx., 11 ; xxi., 1. — " Brown 
on the Second Advent." 

10. What considerations favor the spiritual and oppose the 
literal interpretation of Rev. xx., 1-10 ? 

The spiritual interpretation of this difficult passage is as fol- 
lows : Christ has in reserve for his church a period of universal 
expansion and of preeminent spiritual prosperity, when the spirit 
and character of the " noble army of martyrs" shall be repro- 
duced again in the great body of God's people in an unprece- 
dented measure, and when these martyrs shall, in the general 
triumph of their cause, and in the overthrow of that of their 
enemies, receive judgment over their foes and reign in the earth ; 
while the party of Satan, " the rest of the dead," shall not flourish 
again until the thousand years be ended, when it shall prevail 
again for a little season. 

The considerations in favor of this interpretation of the 
passage are— 



KETURN OF THE JEWS TO PALESTINE. 453 

1st. It occurs in one of the most highly figurative books of 
the Bible. 

2d. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with ail the 
other more explicit teachings of the Scriptures on the several 
points involved. 

3d. The same figure, viz., that of life again from the dead, is 
frequently used in Scripture to express the idea of the spiritual 
revival of the church, Is. xxvi., 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii., 12-14 ; Hosea 
vi., 1-3 ; Rom. xi., 15 ; Rev. xi., 11. 

The considerations bearing against the literal interpretation 
of this passage are — 

1st. That the pretended doctrine of two resurrections, i. e., 
first of the righteous, and then, after an interval of a thousand 
years, of the wicked, is taught nowhere else in the Bible, and 
this single passage in which it occurs is an obscure one. This is 
a strong presumption against the truth of the doctrine. 

2d. It is inconsistent with what the Scriptures uniformly 
teach as to the nature of the resurrection body, i. e., that it is to 
be "spiritual," not "natural/' or "flesh and blood," 1 Cor. xv., 
44. It is, on the contrary, an essential part of the doctrine as- 
sociated with the literal interpretation of this passage, that the 
saints, or at least the martyrs, are to rise and reign a thousand 
years in the flesh, and in this world as at present constituted. 

3d. The literal interpretation of this passage contradicts the 
clear and uniform teaching of the Scriptures, that all the dead, 
good and bad, are to rise and be judged together at the second 
coming of Christ, and the entire revolution of the present order 
of creation. See the Scripture testimonies collected under the 
preceding question. 

11. Shoiv that the future general conversion of the Jews is 
taught in Scripture ? 

This Paul, in Rom. xi., 15-29, both asserts and proves from 
Old Testament prophecies, e. g., Isa. lix., 20 ; Jer. xxxi., 31. 
See also Zech. xii., 10 ; 2 Cor. iii., 15, 16. 

12. State the argument for and against the opinion that the 
Jeivs are to be restored to their own land f 
The arguments in favor of that return are — ■ 



454 SECOND ADVENT. 

1st. The literal sense of many old Testament prophecies, Isa. 
xi., 11, 12 ; Jer. iii., 17 ; xvi., 14, 15 ; Ezek. xx., 4CM4 ; xxxiv., 
11-31 ; xxxvi., 1-36 ; Hosea iii., 4, 5 ; Amos ix., 11-15 ; Zech. 
x., 6-10 ; xiv., 1-20 ; Joel iii., 1-17. 

2d. That the whole territory promised by God to Abraham has 
never at any period been fully possessed by his descendants, Gen. 
xv., 18-21 ; Num. xxxiv., 6-12, and renewed through Ezekiel, 
Ezek. xlvii., 1-23. 

3d. The land, though capable of maintaining a vast popula- 
tion, is as preserved unoccupied, evidently waiting for inhabitants. 
See Keith's " Land of Israel." 

4th. The Jews, though scattered among all nations, have been 
miraculously preserved a separate people, and evidently await a 
destiny as signal and peculiar as has been their history. The 
arguments against their return to the land of their fathers are — 

1st. The New Testament is entirely silent on the subject of 
any such return, which would be an inexplicable omission in the 
clearer revelation, if that event is really future. 

2d. The literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophe- 
cies concerned in this question would be most unnatural, (1.) Be- 
cause, if the interpretation is to be consistent, it must be literal 
in all its parts. Then it would follow that David himself, in 
person, must be raised to reign again in Jerusalem, Ezek. xxxvii., 
24, etc. Then the Levitical priesthood must be restored, and 
bloody sacrifices offered to God, Ezek. xl. to xlvi. ; Jer. xvii., 25, 
26. Then must Jerusalem be the center of government, the Jews 
a superior class in the Christian church, and all worshippers must 
come monthly and from Sabbath to Sabbath, from the ends of 
the earth to worship at the Holy City, Isa. ii., 2, 3 ; lxvi., 20-23 ; 
Zech. xiv., 16-21. (2.) Because the literal interpretation thus 
leads to the revival of the entire ritual system of the Jews, and is 
inconsistent with the spirituality of the kingdom of Christ. See 
above, question 9. (3.) Because the literal interpretation of these 
passages is inconsistent with what the New Testament plainly 
teaches as to the abolition of all distinctions between the Jew and 
Gentile ; the Jews, when converted, are to be grafted back into 
the same church, Kom. xi., 19-24 ; Eph. ii., 13-19. (4.) Because 
this interpretation is inconsistent with what the New Testament 
teaches as to the temporary purpose, the virtual insufficiency, 



GENERAL JUDGMENT. 455 

and the final abolition of the Levitical priesthood and their sacri- 
fices, and of the infinite sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and 
the eternity of his priesthood, Gal. iv., 9, 10 ; v., 4-8 Col. ii., 
16-23 ; Heb. vii., 12-18 ; viii., 7-13 ; ix. ; 1-14. 

3d. On the other hand, the spiritual interpretation of these 
Old Testament prophecies — which regards them as predicting the 
future purity and extension of the Christian church, and as indi- 
cating these spiritual subjects by means of those persons, places 
and ordinances of the old economy which were typical of them — 
is both natural and accordant to the analogy of Scripture. In 
the New Testament, Christians are called Abram's seed, Gal. iii., 
29 ; Israelites, Gal. vi., 16, Eph. ii., 12, 19 ; comers to Mount 
Zion, Heb. xii., 22 ; citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv., 
26 ; the circumcision, Phil, iii., 3, Col. ii., 11, and in Kev. ii., 9, 
they are called Jews. There is also a Christian priesthood and 
spiritual sacrifice, 1 Pet. ii., 5, 9 ; Heb. xiii., 15, 16 ; Kom. xii., 
1. See Fairbairn's Typology Appendix, Vol. I. 

13. Who is to be the judge of the world? 

Jesus Christ, in his official character as Mediator, in both na- 
tures, as the God-man. This is evident, 1st, because as judge he 
is called the " Son of Man," Matt, xxv., 31, 32, and the " man 
ordained by God," Acts xvii., 31. 2d. Because all judgment is 
said to be committed to him by the Father, John v., 22, 27. 3d. 
Because it pertains to him as Mediator to complete and publicly 
manifest the salvation of his people, and the overthrow of his ene- 
mies, together with the glorious righteousness of his work in both 
respects, 2 Thess. i., 7-10 ; Eev. i., 7 ; and thus accomplish the 
" restitution of all things," Acts iii., 21. And this he shall do in 
his own person, that his glory may be the more manifest, the 
discomfiture of his enemies the more humiliating, and the hope 
and joy of his redeemed the more complete. 

14. Who are to be the subjects of the judgment i 

1st. The whole race of Adam, without exception, of every gen- 
eration, condition and character, each individual appearing in the 
integrity of his person, " body, soul and spirit." The dead will 
be raised, and the living changed simultaneously, Matt, xxv., 



456 SECOND ADVENT. 

31-46 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3 51, 52 ; 2 Cor. v., 10 ; 1 Thess. iv., 17 ; 2 
Thess. "i., 6-10 ; Kev. xx., 11-15. 2d. All evil angels, 2 Pet. it, 
4 ; Jude 6. Good angels appearing as attendants and ministers, 
Matt, xiii., 41, 42. 

15. In what sense is it said that the saints shall judge the 
world ? 

See Matt, xix., 28 ; Luke xxii., 29, 30 ; 1 Cor. vi., 2, 3 ; 
Rev. xx., 4. 

In virtue of the union of believers with Christ, his triumph 
and dominion is theirs. They are joint heirs with him, and if 
they suffer with him they shall reign with him, Rom. viii., 17 ; 2 
Tim. ii., 12. He will judge and condemn his enemies as head and 
champion of his church, all his members assenting to his judg- 
ment and glorying in his triumph, Rev. xix., 1-5. — Hodge's Com. 
on 1st Cor. 

16. Upon what principles will his judgment be dispensed? 

The judge is figuratively represented, (Rev. xx., 12,) after the 
analogy of human tribunals, as opening "books" in judgment, ac- 
cording to the things written in which the dead are to be judged, 
and also " another book/' " which is the book of life." The books 
first mentioned doubtless figuratively represent the law or stand- 
ard according to which each one was to be judged, and the facts 
in his case, or " the works which he had done." The "book of 
life" (see also Phil, iv., 3 ; Rev. iii., 5 ; xiii., 8 ; xx., 15) is the 
book of God's eternal electing love. Those whose names are 
found written in the " book of life" will be declared righteous on 
the ground of their participation in the righteousness of Christ. 
Their holy characters and good deeds, however, will be publicly 
declared as the evidences of their election, of their relation to 
Christ, and of the glorious work of Christ in them, Matt, xiii., 
43 ; xxv., 34-40. 

Those whose names are not found written in " the book of 
life" will be condemned on the ground of the evil " deeds they 
have done in the body," tried by the standard of God's law, not 
as that law has been ignorantly conceived of by each, but as it 
has been more or less fully and clearly revealed by the Judge 
himself to each severally. The heathen who has sinned without 



FINAL CONFLAGRATION. 457 

the written law " shall be judged without the law," i. e., by the 
law written upon his heart, which made him a law unto himself, 
Luke xii., 47, 48 ; Rom. ii., 12-15. The Jew, who " sinned in 
the law, shall be judged by the law/' Rom. ii., 12. Every indi- 
vidual dwelling under the light of the Christian revelation shall 
be judged in strict accordance with the whole will of God as made 
known to him, all of the special advantages of every kind enjoyed 
by him individually modifying the proportion of his responsibility, 
Matt, xi, 20-24 ; John iii., 19. 

The secrets of all hearts ; the inward states and hidden springs 
of action will be brought in as the subject matter of judgment, as 
well as the actions themselves, Eccle. xii., 14 ; 1 Cor. iv., 5 ; and 
publicly declared to vindicate the justice of the Judge, and to 
make manifest the shame of the sinner, Luke viii., 17 ; xii., 2, 3 ; 
Mark iv., 22. Whether the sins of the saints will be brought for- 
ward at the judgment or not is a question not settled by the Scrip- 
tures, though debated by theologians. If they should be, we are 
sure that it will be done only with the design and effect of en- 
hancing the glory of the Saviour and the comfort of the saved. 

17. What do the Scriptures reveal concerning the future con- 
flagration of our earth t 

The principal passages bearing upon this point are Ps. cii., 26, 
27 ; Is. Ii., 6 ; Rom. viii., 19-23 ; Heb. xii., 26, 27 ; 2 Pet. iii., 
10-13 ; Rev. xx. and xxi. 

Many of the older theologians thought that these passages 
indicated that the whole existing physical universe was to be 
destroyed. This view is now universally discarded. Some held 
that this earth is to be annihilated. 

The most common and probable opinion is that at " the resti- 
tution of all things," Acts, iii., 21, this earth, with its atmosphere, 
is to be subjected to intense heat, which will radically change its 
present physical condition, introducing in the place of the present 
an higher order of things, which shall appear as a " new heavens and 
a new earth," wherein " the creature itself, also, shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the 
children of God," Rom. viii., 19-23, and wherein the constitution 
of the new world will be adapted to the " spiritual" or resurrec- 
tion bodies of the saints, 1 Cor. xv. ; 44, to be the scene of the 



458 SECOND ADVENT. 

heavenly society, and, above all, to be the palace-temple of the 
God-man for ever, Eph. i., 14 ; Kev. v., 9, 10 ; xxi., 1-5. See 
also Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. I., Part II., Chap. II., sec. 7. 

18. What should be the moral effect of the Scripture doctrine 
of Christ's second advent ? 

Christians ought thereby to be comforted when in sorrow, and 
always stimulated to duty, Phil, iii., 20 ; Col. iii., 4, 5 ; James 
v., 7 ; 1 John iii., 2, 3. It is their duty also to love, watch, wait 
for, and hasten unto the coming of their Lord, Luke xii., 35, 37 ; 

1 Cor. i., 7, 8 ; Phil, iii., 20 ; 1 Thess. i., 9, 10 ; 2 Tim. iv., 8 ; 

2 Pet. iii., 12 ; Eev. xxii., 20. 

Unbelievers should be rilled with fearful apprehension, and 
with all their might they should seek place for immediate re- 
pentance, Mark xiii., 35, 37 ; 2 Pet. iii., 9, 10 ; Jude 14, 15. — 
Brown's Second Advent. 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

HEAVEN AND HELL. 

1. What is the New Testament usage as to the terms dvgavng, 
"heaven," and rd enovpdvm, u heavenly places ?" 

'Ovpavog is used chiefly in three senses. 1st. The upper air 
where the birds fly, Matt, viii., 20 ; xxiv., 30. 2d. The region 
in which the stars revolve, Acts vii., 42 ; Heb. xi., 12. 3d. The 
abode of Christ's human nature, the scene of the special manifes- 
tation of divine glory, and of the eternal blessedness of the saints, 
Heb. ix., 24 ; 1 Pet. hi., 22. This is sometimes called the 
" third heaven," 2 Cor. xii., 2. The phrases " new heaven," and 
" new earth," in contrast with " first heavens" and " first earth," 

2 Pet. iii., 7, 13 ; Rev. xxi., 1, refer to some unexplained change 
which will take place in the final catastrophe, by which God will 
revolutionize our portion of the physical universe, cleansing it 
from the stain of sin, and qualifying it to be the abode of bless- 
edness. 

For the usage with regard to the phrase " kingdom of heaven," 
see above, Chap. XXIV., question 5. 

The phrase rd snovgdvia is translated sometimes, " heavenly 
things," John iii., 12, where it signifies the mysteries of the un- 
seen spiritual world ; and sometimes " heavenly places," Eph. i., 

3 ; and ii., 6, where it means the state into which a believer is 
introduced at his regeneration ; see also Eph. i., 20, where it 
means the " third heavens ;" and Eph. vi., 12, where it signifies 
indefinitely the supermundane universe. 

2. What are the principle terms, both literal and figurative, 
which are used in Scripture to designate the future blessedness 
of the saints ? 

Literal terms : — " life, eternal life, and life everlasting, Matt. 



460 HEAVEN. 

vii., 14 ; xix., 16, 29 ; xxv., 46. Glory, the glory of God, an 
eternal weight of glory, Kom. ii., 7, 10 ; v., 2 ; 2 Cor. iv., 17. 
Peace, Kom. ii., 10. Salvation, and eternal salvation, Heb. v., 9." 
Figurative terms : — " Paradise, Luke xxiii, 43 ; 2 Cor. xii., 
4 ; Rev. ii., 7. Heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv., 26 ; Rev. iii., 12. 
Kingdom of heaven, heavenly kingdom, eternal kingdom, king- 
dom prepared from the foundation of the world, Matt, xxv., 34 ; 
2 Tim. iv., 18 ; 2 Pet. i., 11. Eternal inheritance, 1 Pet. i., 4 ; 
Heb. ix., 15, The blessed are said to sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob, to be in Abraham's bosom, Luke xvi., 22 ; Matt, 
viii., 11 ; to reign with Christ, 2 Tim. ii., 11, 12 ; to enjoy a Sab- 
bath or rest, Heb. iv., 10, 11." — Kitto's Bib. Ency. 

3. What is revealed with respect to heaven as a place ? 

All the Scripture representations of heaven involve the idea 
of a definite place, as well as of a state of blessedness. Of that 
place, however, nothing more is revealed than that it is defined 
by the local j^resence of Christ's finite soul and body, and that it 
is the scene of the preeminent manifestation of God's glory, John 
xvii., 24 ; 2 Cor. v., 9 ; Rev. v., 6. 

From such passages as Rom. viii., 19-23 ; 2 Pet. iii., 5-13 : 
Rev. xxi., 1, it appears not improbable that after the general des- 
truction of the present form of the world by fire, which shall ac- 
company the judgment, this world will be reconstituted, and glo- 
riously adapted to be the permanent residence of Christ and his 
church. As there is to be a " spiritual body," there may be ir 
the same sense a spiritual world, that is, a w r orld adapted to 
the theater of the glorified spirits of the saints made perfect. As 
nature was cursed for man's sake, and the creature, through him, 
made subject to vanity, it may be that they shall share in his 
redemption and exaltation. See Fairbairn's Typology, Part II., 
Chap. II., sec. 7. 

4. Wherein does the blessedness of heaven consist as far as 
revealed f 

1st. Negatively, in perfect deliverance from sin, and from all 
its evil consequences, physical, moral, and social, Rev. vii., 16, 
17 ; xxi., 4, 27. 

2d. Positively. (1.) In the perfection of our nature, both ma- 



ITS BLESSEDNESS. 461 

terial and spiritual ; the full development and harmonious exer- 
cise of all our faculties, intellectual and moral, and in the unre- 
strained progress thereof to eternity, 1 Cor. xiii., 9-12 ; xv., 
45-49 ; 1 John iii., 2. (2.) In the sight of our blessed Kedeemer, 
communion with his person, and fellowship in all his glory and 
blessedness, and through him with saints and angels, John xvii., 
24 ; 1 John i., 3 ; Eev. iii., 21 ; xxi., 3, 4, 5. (3.) In that 
" beatific vision of God," which, consisting in the ever increasingly 
clear discovery of the divine excellence lovingly apprehended, 
transforms the soul into the same image, from glory unto glory, 
Matt, v., 8 ; 2 Cor. iii., 18. 

In meditating upon what is revealed of the conditions of 
heavenly existence two errors are to be avoided : 1st, the ex- 
treme of regarding the mode of existence experienced by the 
saints in heaven as too nearly analogous to that of our earthly 
life ; 2d, the opposite extreme of regarding the conditions of the 
heavenly life as too widely distinguished from that of our present 
experience. The evil effect of the first extreme will, of course, 
be to degrade by unworthy associations our conceptions of heaven; 
while the evil effect of the opposite extreme will be in great 
measure to destroy the moral power which a hope of heaven 
should naturally exert over our hearts and lives, by rendering our 
conceptions of it vague, and our sympathy with its characteristics 
consequently distant and feeble. To avoid both of these ex- 
tremes, we should fix the limits within which our conceptions of 
the future existence of the saints must range, by distinguishing 
between those elements of man's nature, and of his relations to 
God and other men, which are essential and unchangeable, and 
those elements which must be changed in order to render his 
nature in his relations perfect. 1st. The following must be 
changed : (1.) all sin and its consequences must be removed ; 
(2.) " spiritual bodies" must take the place of our present flesh 
and blood ; (3.) the new heavens and the new earth must take 
the place of the present heavens and earth, as the scene of man's 
life ; (4.) the laws of social organization must be radically 
changed, since in heaven there will be no marriage, but a social 
order analogous to that of the " angels of God" introduced. 

2d. The following elements are essential, and therefore un- 
changeable, (1.) Man will continue ever to exist, as compounded 



462 HEAVEN. 

of two natures, spiritual and material. (2.) He is essentially in- 
tellectual, and must live by knowledge. (3.) He is essentially 
active, and must have work to do. (4.) Man can, as a finite 
creature, know God only mediately, i. e., through his works of 
creation and providence, the experience of his gracious work upon 
our hearts, and through his incarnate Son, who is the image of 
his person, and the fullness of the Godhead bodily. God will 
therefore in heaven continue to teach man through his works, 
and to act upon him by means of motives addressed to his will 
through his understanding. (5.) The memory of man never 
finally loses the slightest impression, and it will belong to the 
perfection of the heavenly state that every experience acquired 
in the past will always be within the perfect control of the will. 
(6.) Man is essentially a social being. This, taken in connection 
with the preceding point, indicates the conclusion that the asso- 
ciations, as well as the experience of our earthly life, will carry 
all of their natural consequences with them into the new mode 
of existence, except as far as they are necessarily modified (not 
lost) by the change. (7.) Man's life is essentially an eternal pro- 
gress toward infinite perfection. (8.) All the known analogies 
of God's works in creation, in his providence in the material and 
moral world, and in his dispensation of grace, (1 Cor. xii., 5-28,) 
indicate that in heaven saints will differ among themselves both 
as to inherent capacities and qualities, and as to relative rank and 
office. These differences will doubtless be determined a by con- 
stitutional differences of natural capacity, b by gracious rewards 
in heaven corresponding in kind and degree to the gracious fruit- 
fulness of the individual on earth, c by the absolute sovereignty 
of the Creator, Matt, xvi., 27 ; Rom. ii., 6 ; 1 Cor. xil, 4-28. 

5. What are the principal terms, literal and figurative, which 
are applied in Scripture to the future condition of the reprobate? 

As a place, it is sometimes literally designated by didyg. Hades, 
and sometimes by yeewa, both translated hell, Matt, v., 22, 29, 
30 ; Luke xvi., 23. Also by the phrase, " place of torment," 
Luke xvi., 28. As a condition of suffering, it is literally desig- 
nated by the phrases, " wrath of God," Rom. ii., 5, and " second 
death/' Rev. xxi., 8. 






SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS. 463 

Figurative terms. — Everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
and his angels, Matt. xxv., 41. The hell of fire, where the worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, Mark ix., 44. The lake 
which burnetii with fire and brimstone, Kev. xxi., 8. Bottomless 
pit, Eev. ix., 2. The dreadful nature of this abode of the wicked 
is implied in such expressions as " outer darkness," the place 
" where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth," Matt, viii., 12 ; 
" I am tormented in this flame," Luke xvi., 24 ; " unquenchable 
fire," Luke iii., 17; "furnace of fire," Matt, xiii., 42 ; "black- 
ness of darkness," Jude 13 ; " torment in fire and brimstone," 
Eev. xiv., 10 ; " the smoke of their torment ascendeth for ever 
and ever, and they have no rest day nor night," Kev. xiv., 11. — 
Kitto's Bib. Ency. 

6. What do the Scriptures teach as to the nature of future 
punishments ? 

The terms used in Scripture to describe these sufferings are 
evidently figurative, yet they certainly establish the following 
points. These sufferings will consist, 1st, in the loss of all good, 
whether natural, as granted through Adam, or gracious, as offered 
through Christ. 2d. In all the natural consequences of unre- 
strained sin, judicial abandonment, utter alienation from God, 
and the awful society of lost men and devils, 2 Thess. i., 9. 3d. 
In the positive infliction of torment, God's wrath and curse de- 
scending upon both the moral and physical nature of its objects. 
The Scriptures also establish the fact that these sufferings must 
be, 1st, inconceivably dreadful in degree. 2d. Endless in dura- 
tion. 3d. Various in degree, proportionately to the deserts of 
the subject, Matt, x., 15 .; Luke xii., 48. 

7. What is the usage of the ivords, diwv, eternity, and aiuviog, 
eternal, in the Neiv Testament, and the argument thence derived 
establishing the endless duration of future punishment ? 

1st. The Greek language possesses no more emphatic terms 
with which to express the idea of endless duration than these. 
2d. Although they are sometimes employed in the New Testa- 
ment to designate limited duration, yet, in the vast majority of 
instances, they evidently designate unlimited duration. 3d. They 



464 HELL. 

are used to express the endless duration of God. (1.) di&v is 
thus used, 1 Tim. i., 17, and as applied to Christ, Kev. i., 18. 
(2.) diuvwg is thus used, Rom. xvi., 26, and as applied to the 
Holy Ghost, Heh. ix., 14. 4th. They are used to express the 
endless duration of the future happiness of the saints. (1.) dt6v 
is thus used, John vi., 57, 58 ; 2 Cor. ix., 9. (2.) diwviog is thus 
used, Matt, xix., 29 ; Mark x., 30 ; John iii., 15 ; Rom. ii., 7. 
5th. In Matt, xxv., 46, the very same word is used in a single 
clause to define at once the duration of the future happiness of 
the saints, and the misery of the lost. Thus the Scriptures do 
expressly declare that the duration of the future misery of the 
lost is to be in precisely the same sense unending, as is either the 
life of God, or the blessedness of the saints. 

8. What evidence/or the truth on this subject is furnished by 
the New Testament usage of the word dtdtog ? 

This word, formed from del, alivays, for ever, signifies, in clas- 
sical Greek, eternal. It occurs only twice in the New Testament, 
Rom. i., 20, " even his eternal power and Godhead/' and Jude 6, 
" Angels reserved in everlasting chains." But lost men share the 
fate of lost angels, Matt, xxv., 41 ; Rev. xx., 10. Thus the same 
word expresses the duration of the Godhead and of the sufferings 
of the lost. 

9. What other evidence do the Scriptures furnish on this sub- 
ject ? 

1st. There is nothing in the Scriptures which, even by the 
most remote implication, suggests that the sufferings of the lost 
shall ever end. 

2d. The constant application to the subject of such figurative 
language as, "fire that shall not be quenched," "fire unquench- 
able," "the worm that never dies," "bottomless pit," the neces- 
sity of paying the " uttermost farthing," " the smoke of their tor- 
ment arising for ever and ever," Luke iii., 17 ; Mark ix., 45, 46 ; 
Rev. xiv., 10, 11, is consistent only with the conviction that God 
wills us to believe on his authority that future punishments are 
literally endless. It is said of those who commit the unpardon- 
able sin that they shall never be forgiven, " either in this world 
nor in that which is to come," Matt, xii., 32. 



ETERNITY OF SUFFERING. 465 

10. What are two views on this subject, which have been held 
by different parties in opposition to the faith of the ivhole Chris- 
tian church, and the clear teaching of God's word t 

The only two classes of theories possible as alternatives to the 
orthodox doctrine on this subject, are those, 1st, which involve 
the idea of the total destruction of being (annihilation) as an ele- 
ment of the "second death/' 2d. Those which maintain the 
future restoration of the sinner after an indefinite period of aton- 
ing and purifying suffering in proportion to his guilt. 

In refutation of the for mer of these theories, which has been 
rendered respectable chiefly by the adventitious circumstance that 
it is countenanced by Archbishop Whately, " View of Sc. Kev. 
Concerning a Future State," we argue, 1st, the Scriptures never 
express the idea contended for, but consistently use language 
which has naturally and almost universally conveyed an opposite 
idea. 2d. The Scriptures plainly assert (1.) that the future state 
is one of conscious suffering, (2.) that this conscious suffering is 
to continue for ever — " worm dieth not," " everlasting fire," u un- 
quenchable fire," " weeping and gnashing of teeth," " the smoke 
of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have 
no rest day nor night." See above, question 9. 

In refutation of the latter opinion, that the lost will be re- 
stored after an indefinite period of suffering, we argue, 1st, it has 
no foundation in Scripture. 2d. It is directly refuted by all 
the positive evidence we have above presented in establishing the 
orthodox doctrine. 3d. The atonement of Christ and the sancti- 
fying work of the Holy Ghost are the exclusive means of salva- 
tion. (1.) These have been finally rejected by the lost. (2.) 
They are never applied in hell. 4th. The essential nature of sin 
determines it when left to itself to multiply itself and its conse- 
quent miseries at a fearful ratio. 5th. Suffering per se has no 
cleansing power ; penal evils, when sufficient, may satisfy justice 
for past sin, but they can not cleanse the heart, nor prevent re- 
newed transgressions. 6th. This essential insalvability of the lost 
sinner will be in the highest degree aggravated by his circum- 
stances ; banished from G-od, subject to his curse, in unutterable 
torments, without grace and without hope, and surrounded with 
the society of all the workers of abomination gathered from the 
whole universe. 



466 HELL. 

11. What objection is urged against this doctrine derived 
from the justice of God ? 

The justice of God demands that the punishment should be 
exactly proportioned to the guilt of the subject. But it is ob- 
jected, 1st. No sin of any finite creature can deserve an infinite 
punishment. 2d. All everlasting punishment is infinite, but the 
infinite does noi admit of degrees, yet the guilt of different sin- 
ners is various. 3d. The moral difference between the lowest 
saint saved, and the most amiable sinner lost, is imperceptible, 
yet their fate differs infinitely. 

To the first objection we answer. The human mind not being 
able to conceive of the infinite, only confuses itself when it at- 
tempts to deal with its negative conception of the indefinite as a 
reality. Every sin of man against the infinite God is declared 
by Scripture, and is felt by every enlightened conscience to be, 
worthy of instant and final expulsion from the divine presence, 
which necessarily leads to an absolutely endless increase both of 
sin and misery, Gal. iii., 10 ; James ii., 10. The same is proved 
by the infinite sacrifice justice demanded for the propitiation of 
sin. " If they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done 
in the dry ?" Luke xxiii., 31. 

The second objection is a dishonest cavil. It is very plain 
that sufferings may be at once infinite in duration, and various 
as to degree. 

To the third objection we answer. That although there may 
be little difference as to their respective personal demerits between 
the feeblest saint and the most moral reprobate, yet there is 
rightly made an infinite difference in their treatment, because of 
their essentially different relations to Christ. The feeblest and 
the loftiest saint are alike justified upon an equal foundation ; 
each has the whole of Christ, and nothing more. 

12. What objection drawn from the benevolence of God has 
been urged against this doctrine ? 

It has been objected that God is essentially benevolent, and 
that it is inconsistent with his nature to inflict any suffering upon 
his creatures which is not necessary as a means to the end of their 
attaining some higher good. We answer : 1st, God is just as 



ETERNITY OF SUFFERING. 467 

well as benevolent, and one of the elements of his infinite perfec- 
tion can not be inconsistent with another. 2d. We have con- 
stant experience that God does in principle involve his creatures 
in sufferings which are not to the individual subjects thereof the 
means of any conceivable advantage. 3d. It would follow that 
Christ was sacrificed in vain if those who reject him, and who 
fail of all share in his grace, are not eternally punished. 4th. 
The very benevolence of God, as concerned for the general good 
of the universe, concurs with his justice in demanding the execu- 
tion of the full penalty of the law upon all unbelievers. 

13. What argument for the future restoration of all rational 
creatures to holiness and happiness is founded upon Eom. v., 18, 
19 ; 1 Cor. xv., 22-28 ; Eph. i., 10 ; Col. i., 19, 20 ? 

In regard to Kom. v., 18, it is argued that the phrase " all 
men" must have precisely the same extent of application in the 
one clause as in the other. We answer, 1st, the phrase " all 
men" is often used in Scripture in connections which necessarily 
restrict the sense, John iii., 26; xii., 32. 2d. In this case the phrase 
" all men" is evidently defined by the qualifying phrase, ver. 17, 
"who have received abundance of grace and the gift of righteous- 
ness." 3d. This contrast between the " all men" in Adam and 
the " all men" in Christ is consistent with the analogy of the 
whole gospel. 

In regard to 1 Cor. xv., 22, the argument is the same as 
that drawn from Kom. v., 18. From verses 25-28 it is argued 
that the great end of Christ's mediatorial reign must be the resto- 
ration of every creature to holiness and blessedness. To this we 
answer, 1st, this is a strained interpretation put upon these words, 
which they do not necessarily bear, and which is clearly refuted 
by the many direct testimonies we have cited from Scripture 
above. 2d. It is inconsistent with the scope of Paul's subject in 
this passage. He says that from eternity to the ascension God 
reigned absolutely. From the ascension to the restitution of all 
things God reigns in the person of the God-man as Mediator. 
From the restitution to eternity God will again reign directly 
as absolute God. 

The ultimate salvation of all creatures is argued also from 



468 HELL. 

Eph. i., 10 ; Col. i., 19, 20. In both passages, however, the " all 
things" signify the whole company of angels and redeemed men, 
who are gathered under the dominion of Christ. Because, 1st, 
in both passages the subject of discourse is the church, not the 
universe ; 2d, in both passages the " all things" is limited by the 
qualifying phrases, " the predestinated," " we who first trusted 
in Christ," " the accepted in the beloved," " if ye continue in the 
faith," etc., etc. See Hodge's Commentaries on Komans, 1st 
Corinthians and Ephesians. 



CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

SACRAMENTS. 

1. What is etymology , and ivhat the classical and patristic 
usage of the word " sacr amentum f" 

1st. It is derived from sacro, are, to make sacred, dedicate to 
gods or sacred uses. 

2d. In its classical usage it signified (1.) that by which a per- 
son binds himself to another to perform any thing. (2.) Thence a 
sum deposited with the court as pledge, and which, if forfeited, 
was devoted to sacred uses. (3.) Also an oath, especially a sol- 
dier's oath of faithful consecration to his country's service. — Ains- 
worth's Die. 

3d. The fathers used this word in a conventional sense as 
equivalent to the Greek {ivorrjpiov, a mystery, i. e., something un- 
known until revealed, and hence an emblem, a type, a rite hav- 
ing some latent spiritual meaning known only to the initiated, 
or instructed. 

The Greek fathers applied the term \ivarr\piov to the Christian 
ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, inasmuch as these 
rites had a spiritual significance, and were thus a form of revela- 
tion of divine truth. 

The Latin fathers used the word " sacramentum" as a Latin 
word, in its own proper sense, for any thing sacred in itself, or 
having the power of binding, or consecrating men, and in addition 
they used it as the equivalent of the Greek word \ivar^iov^ %. e., 
in the entirely different sense of a revealed truth, or a sign or 
symbol revealing a truth otherwise hidden. This fact has given 
to the usage of this word " sacramentum," in the scholastic the- 
ology, an injurious latitude and indefiniteness of meaning. Thus 



470 SACRAMENTS. 

in Eph. iii. ; 3, 4, 9 ; v., 32 ; 1 Tim. iii., 16 ; Eev. i., 20, the 
word [ivarrjpiov truly bears the sense of " the revelation of a truth 
undiscoverable by reason/' and it is translated in such passages 
in the English version, mystery, and in the Latin vulgate, " sac- 
ramentum" Thus the Komish church uses the same word in two 
entirely different senses, applying it indifferently to baptism and 
the Lord's supper " as binding ordinances," and to the union of 
believers with Christ as a revealed truth, Eph. v., 32. And hence 
they absurdly infer that matrimony is a sacrament. 

2. What is the definition of a sacrament, as given by the Fa- 
thers, the Schoolmen, the Romish Church, the Church of England, 
and in our own Standards ? 

1st. Augustin's definition is " Signum rei sacrae," or " Sacra- 
mentum est invisibilis gratias visibile signum, ad nostram justifi- 
cationem institutum." 

2d. The schoolmen defined, " Sacramentum invisibilis gratias 
visibilem formam. 

3d. The Council of Trent defines them, " A sacrament is 
something presented to the senses, which has the power, by divine 
institution, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently convey- 
ing grace." — Cat. Kom., Part II., Chap. I., Q. 6. 

4th. Church of England, in the 25th article of religion, affirms 
that " Sacraments instituted by Christ are not only the badges 
and tokens of the profession of Christian men, but rather they be 
certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and of G-od's 
good will towards us, by the which he doth work inwardly in us, 
and cloth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our 
faith in him." 

5th. The Wesminster Assembly's Larger Cat., Q. 162 and 
163, affirms that a " Sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by 
Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit to those who are 
within the covenant of grace the benefits of his mediation, to in- 
crease their faith and all other graces, to oblige them to obedi- 
ence, to testify and cherish their love and communion with one 
another, and to distinguish them from those that are without." 
" The parts of a sacrament are two, the one an outward and 
sensible sign used according to Christ's own appointment ; the 
other an inward spiritual grace thereby signified." 



THEIR NUMBER. 471 

3. On what principles is such a definition to he constructed ? 

1st. It is to be remembered that the term " sacrament" does 
not occur in the Bible. 

2d. From the extreme latitude with which this term has been 
used, both in the sense proper to it as a Latin word, and in that 
attributed to it as the conventional equivalent of the Greek word 
[ivoT?jpLov y it is evident that no definition of a gospel ordinance 
can be arrived at by a mere reference either to the etymology or 
ecclesiastical usage of the word " sacramentum." 

3d. The definition of a class of gospel ordinances can be prop- 
erly formed only by a comparison of all the Scriptures teach 
concerning the origin, nature, and design of those ordinances 
universally recognized as belonging to that class, and thus by 
determining those essential elements which are common to each 
member of the class, and which distinguish them as a class from 
all other divine ordinances. 

4th. Those ordinances which are " universally recognized" as 
sacraments are baptism and the Lord's supper. 

4. How many sacraments do Romanists make, and how may 
the controversy between them and the Protestants be decided ? 

The Koman church teaches that there are seven sacraments, 
viz., baptism, confirmation, the Lord's supper, penance, extreme 
unction, orders, marriage. 

We maintain, however, that only baptism and the Lord's 
supper can be properly embraced under either the Protestant or 
the Catholic definitions of a sacrament, as given above, ques- 
tion 2. 

1st. Confirmation, penance, and extreme unction are not di- 
vine institutions, having no warrant whatever in Scripture. 

2. That marriage instituted by God in Paradise, and ordination 
to the gospel ministry instituted by Christ, although both divine 
institutions, are evidently not ordinances of the same kind with 
baptism and the Lord's supper, and do not meet the conditions 
of either definitions of a sacrament, since they neither signify nor 
convey any inward grace. 

5. What tivo things are included in every sacrament ? 

1st. " An outward visible sign used according to Christ's own 



472 SACRAMENTS. 

appointment ; 2d, an inward spiritual grace thereby signified. — 
L. Cat., Q. 163. 

The Komanists, in the language of the schoolmen, distinguish 
between the matter and the form of a sacrament. The matter is 
that part of the sacrament subjected to the senses, and significant 
of grace, e. g., the water, and the act of applying the water in 
baptism, and the bread and wine, and the acts of breaking the 
bread, and pouring out the wine in the Lord's supper. The form 
is the divine word used by the minister in administering the ele- 
ments, devoting them thus to the office of signifying grace. 

6. What, according to the Romanists, is the relation between 
the sign and the grace signified ? 

They hold that in consequence of the divine institution, and 
in virtue of the " power of the Omnipotent which exists in them," 
the grace signified is contained in the very nature of the sacra- 
ments themselves, so that it is always conferred, ex opere operato, 
upon every receiver of them who does not oppose a positive obstacle 
thereto. Thus they understand the " sacramental union," or re- 
lation between the sign and the grace signified to be physical, or 
that which subsists between a substance and its properties, i. e., 
the virtue of conferring grace is, in the sacraments, as the virtue 
of burning is in fire. — Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Cans. 6 and 8. 
Cat. Kom., Part II., Chap. I., Q. 18. Bellarmine de Sacram. 2, 1. 

7. What is the Zuinglian doctrine on this subject ? 
Zuingle, the reformer of Switzerland, held a position at the 

opposite extreme to that of the Komish church, viz., that the 
sign simply represents by appropriate symbols, and symbolical 
actions, the grace to which it is related. Thus the sacraments 
are only effective means of the objective presentation of the truth 
symbolized. 

8. In what sense is the word " exhibit" used in our standards 
in reference to this subject ? 

Compare Con. of Faith, Chap. XXYIL, Sec. 3, and Chap. 
XXVIII., Sec. 6, and L. Cat. Q. 162. 

This word is derived from the Latin word " exhibeo," which 
bore the twofold sense of conveying and of disclosing. It is evi- 



THEIR DESIGN. 473 

dent that the term " exhibit" has retained in our standards the 
former sense of conveying, conferring. As in medical language, 
" to exhibit a remedy" is to administer it. 

9. What is the common doctrine of the reformed churches 
as to the relation of the sign to the grace signified ? 

The reformed confessions agree in teaching that this relation 
is, 1st, simply moral, i. e., it is established only by the institution 
and promise of Christ, and it depends upon the right administra- 
tion of the ordinance, and upon the faith and knowledge of the 
recipient. And, 2d, that it is real, that is, when rightly adminis- 
tered, and when received by the recipient with knowledge and 
faith they do really, because of the promise of Christ, seal the 
grace signified, and convey it to the recipient, i. e., the recipient 
does receive the grace with the sign. 

This doctrine, therefore, includes, 1st, the Zuinglian view, 
that the outward visible sign truly signifies the grace. And, 2d, 
that they are, as ordinances of God's appointment, seals attached 
to the promise to authenticate it, as the natural phenomenon of 
the rainbow was made a seal of God's promise to Noah in virtue 
of the divine appointment. 3d. That as seals thus accompanying 
a divine promise by divine authority, they do actually convey the 
grace they signify to those for whom that grace is intended, and 
who are in a proper spiritual state to receive it, "as a key con- 
veys admission, a deed, an estate, the ceremony of marriage the- 
rights of marriage." See Turrettin, L. XIX., question 4 ; Conf. 
Faith, Chap. XXVII. ; L. Cat., questions 162, 163 ; Cat. Gene., 
sec. 5th, de Sacramentis ; Conf. Faith of the French Church, arti- 
cle 34 ; Old Scotch Conf, section 21. 

10. Wliat is the design of the sacraments ? 

1st. That they should signify, seal and exhibit to those within 
the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ's redemption, and 
thus as a principle means of grace edify the church, Matt, iii., 11 ; 
Gen. xvii., 11, 13 ; 1 Cor. x., 2-21 ; xi., 23-26 ; xii., 13 ; Kom. 
ii., 28, 29 ; iv., 11 ; vi., 3, 4 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; 1 Pet. iii., 21. 

2d. That they should be visible badges of membership in the 
church, to put a visible difference between the professed followers 



474 SACRAMENTS. 

of Christ and the world, Gen. xxxiv., 14 ; Ex. xii., 48 ; Eph. ii., 
19 ; Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIL, section 1. 

11. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the sac- 
raments ? 

In consistency with their view of the relation of the grace sig- 
nified to the sign, (see above, question 6,) they hold that the sac- 
raments, in every case of their legitimate administration, convey 
the grace- they signify to every recipient not opposing a positive 
resistance, not depending upon the faith of the receiver, but ex 
opere operato, by the inherent grace-conferring virtue of the sac- 
rament itself. The external action of the sacrament they hold to 
be the sole active and proximate instrumental cause in conferring 
the grace of justification. 

" By the sacraments all true righteousness is commenced, or 
having been commenced, is increased, or having been lost, is re- 
stored/' — Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, Prooemium, and canons 6, 7, 8 ; 
Bellarmine de Sacram. 2, 1. 

12. How may this doctrine be disproved f 

That the sacraments have not the power of conveying grace 
to all, whether they are included within the covenant of grace or 
not, or whether they possess faith or not, is certain, because — 

1st. They are seals of the gospel covenant (see below, question 
14). But a seal merely ratifies a covenant as a covenant. It can 
convey the grace promised only on the supposition that the condi- 
tions of the covenant are fulfilled. But salvation and every spir- 
itual blessing is by that covenant declared to depend upon the 
condition of faith. 

2d. Knowledge and faith are required as the prerequisite con- 
ditions necessary to be found in all applicants, as the essential 
qualification for receiving the sacraments, Acts ii., 41 ; viii., 37 : 
x., 47 ; Kom. iv., 11. 

3d. Faith is essential to render the sacraments efficacious, 
Horn, ii., 25-29 ; 1 Cor. xi., 27-29 ; 1 Pet. iii., 21. 

4th. Many who receive the sacraments are notoriously without 
the, grace they signify. Witness the case of Simon Magus, Acts 
viii., ,9-21, and of many of the Corinthians and Gaiatians, and of 
.the .majority of nominal Christians in the present day. 



THEIR EFFICACY. 475 

5th. Many have had the grace -without the sacraments. Wit- 
ness Abraham, the thief upon the cross, and Cornelius the centu- 
rion, and a multitude of eminent Christians among the Society 
of Friends. 

6th. This doctrine blasphemously ties down the grace of the 
ever living and sovereign God, and puts its entire disposal into 
the hands of fallible and often wicked men. 

7th. This doctrine is an essential element of that ritualistic 
and priestly system which prevailed among the Pharisees, and 
against which the whole Xew Testament is a protest. 

8th. The uniform effect of this system has been to exalt the 
power of the priests, and to confound all knowledge as to the 
nature of true religion. As the baptized, as a matter of fact, do 
not always or generally bear the fruits of the Spirit, all ritualists 
agree in regarding these fruits as not essential to salvation. 
Where this system prevails vital godliness expires. 

13. What efficacy is attributed to the sacraments by the Re- 
formed churches ? 

That they signify, seal, and actually confer the blessings of 
Christ's redemption, but that this efficacy is not in the sacra- 
ments themselves, nor in any virtue derived from the piety or 
intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by 
the working of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ, by 
whom they were instituted, and that this efficacy is confined to 
those who are within the covenant of grace, and in case of adults, 
to the worthy recipients. — Conf. Faith, Chaps. XXVII. and 
XXVIII. ; L. Cat, question 162 ; S. Cat,, question 92. 

14. How may the correctness of the Protestant doctrine be 
proved ? 

1st. As far as this doctrine stands opposed to the Eomish 
heresy, it is established by the arguments presented above, under 
question 12. 

2d. As far as this doctrine stands opposed to the meager Zu- 
inglian or rationalistic view, as stated above, question 7, it may 
be established as follows. (1.) That the sacraments are not only 
signs of the grace of Christ, but also seals of the gospel covenant 



476 SACKAMENTS. 

offering us that grace upon the condition of faith, "is evident from 
the fact that Paul says that circumcision is the seal of the right- 
eousness of faith, Kom. iv., 11. And that the apostle regarded 
baptism in the same light is evident from Col. ii., 11. In refer- 
ence to the Lord's supper, the Saviour said, c this cup is the new 
covenant in my blood/ i. e. } the new covenant was ratified by his 
blood. Of that blood the cup is the appointed memorial, and it 
is therefore both the memorial and the confirmation of the cove- 
nant itself. .... The gospel is represented under the form 
of a covenant. The sacraments are the seals of that covenant. 
God, in their appointment, binds himself to the fulfillment of his 
promises ; his people, by receiving them, bind themselves to trust 
and serve him. This idea is included in the representation given 
(Kom. vi., 3, 4), in the formula of baptism, and in all those pas- 
sages in which a participation of Christian ordinances is said to 
include a profession of the gospel." (2.) As seals attached to the 
covenant, it follows that they actually convey the grace signified, 
as a legal form of investiture, to those to whom, according to the 
terms of the covenant, it belongs. Thus a deed, when signed and 
sealed, is said to convey the property it represents, because it is 
the legal form by which the intention of the original possessor is 
publicly expressed, and his act ratified. It is on this ground that 
in Scripture, as in common language, the names and attributes 
of the graces sealed are ascribed to the sacraments by which they 
are sealed and conveyed to their rightful possessors. — Conf. Faith, 
Chap. XXVII., section 2. They are said to wash away sin, to 
unite to Christ, to save, etc., Acts ii., 38 ; xxii., 16 ; Kom. vi., 2, 6 ; 
1 Cor. x., 16 ; xii., 13 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; Titus iii., 5.— Way of Life. 

15. What is the Romish doctrine of " intention" as connected 
toith this subject ? 

Dens (Vol V., p. 127) says, " To the valid performance of 
the sacrament is required the intention upon the part of the 
officiating minister of doing that which the church does. The 
necessary intention in the minister consists in an act of his will, 
by which he wills the external action with the intention of doing 
what the church does ;" that is, of performing a valid sacrament. 
Otherwise, although every external action may be regularly per- 
formed, the whole is void. See Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, canon 11. 



THEIR NECESSITY. 477 

This leaves the recipient entirely at the mercy of the minister, 
since the validity of the whole service depends npon his secret 
intention, and is evidently one of the devices of that antichrjs- 
tian church to make the people dependent upon the priesthood. 

16. What is the sense in which Protestants admit c ' intention" 
to be necessary ? 

They admit that in order to render the outward service a valid 
sacrament, it must be performed with the ostensible professed 
design of complying thereby with the command of Christ, and of 
doing what he requires to be done by those who accept the gospel 
covenant. 

17. What doctrine do the ritualists maintain as to the neces- 
sity of the sacraments ? 

The Eomanists distinguish, 1st, between a condition absolutely 
necessary to attain an end, and one which is only highly conveni- 
ent and helpful in order to it. And. 2d, between the necessitv 
which attaches to essential means, and that obligation which 
arises from the positive command of God. Accordingly, they 
hold that the several sacraments are necessary in different re- 
spects. 

Baptism they hold to be absolutely necessary, either its actual 
reception, or the honest purpose to receive it, alike for infants and 
adults, as the sole means of attaining salvation. 

Penance they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same 
sense, but only for those who have committed mortal sin subse- 
quently to their baptism. 

Orders they hold to be absolutely nocessary in the same sense, 
yet not for every individual, as a means of personal salvation, 
but in respect to the whole church as a community. 

Confirmation, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction are 
necessary only in the sense of having been commanded, and of 
being eminently helpful 

Marriage they hold to be necessaiy only in this second sense, 
and only for those who enter into the conjugal relation. — Cat. 
Bom., Part II, Chap. I., Q. 13. 

Puseyites, and high churchmen generally, hold the dogma of 



478 SACRAMENTS. 

baptismal regeneration, and of course the consequence that bap- 
tism is absolutely necessary as the sole means of salvation. 

18. What is the Protestant doctrine as to the necessity of the 
sacraments f * 

1st. That the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper 
were instituted by Christ, and that their perpetual observance is 
obligatory upon the church upon the ground of the divine precept. 
This is evident (1.) from the record of their institution, Matt, 
xxviii., 19 ; 1 Cor. xi., 25, 26 ; (2.) from the example of the 
apostles, Acts ii. 41 ; viii., 37 ; 1 Cor. xi., 23-28 ; x., 16-21. 

2d. That nevertheless the grace offered in the gospel covenant 
does not reside in these sacraments physically, nor is it tied to 
them inseparably, so that, although obligatory as duties, and 
helpful as means to those who are prepared to receive them, they 
are in no sense the essential means, without which salvation can 
not be attained. This is proved by the arguments presented 
above, under question 12. 

19. What sacraments impress a " character'' according to 
the Romanists j and what do they mean by that term f 

They hold that the effects of the sacraments are twofold, 
1st, sanctifying grace, which is an effect common to them all. 
2d. The " character" they impress, which is an effect peculiar to 
three, baptism, confTmiation, and holy orders. This " sacramen- 
tal character" (from the Greek word x a 9 aliT 19, a mark, or device, 
engraved or impressed by a seal) is a distinctive and indelible 
impression stamped on the soul, " the twofold effect of which is, 
that it qualifies us to receive or perform something sacred, and 
distinguishes one from another." It is upon this account that 
baptism and confirmation are never repeated, and that the au- 
thority and privileges of the priesthood can never be alienated. — 
Cat. Kom., Part II., Chap. I., Q. 18 and 19 ; Council Trent, 
Sess. 7, can. 9. 

This is an idle conceit, altogether unsupported by Scripture. 



C HAP TEH XXXIX, 

BAPTISM, ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, MODE, SUBJECTS, EFFICACY, 
AND NECESSITY. 

The nature and design of baptism. 

1. How is baptism defined in our standards ? 

Con. of Faith, Chap. XXYIII. L. Cat., Q. 165. S. Cat., 
Q. 94. 

The essential points of this definition are, 1st, it is a washing 
with water. 2d. A washing in the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. 3d. It is done with the design to " signify and seal 
our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the 
covenant of grace, and our engagement to he the Lord's." 

2. What is essential to the ci matter" of baptism ? 

As to its "matter," baptism is essentially a washing with 
water. No particular mode of washing is essential, 1st, because 
no such mode is specified in the command. See below, questions 
7-17. 2d. Because no such mode of administration is essential 
to the proper symbolism of the ordinance. See below, question 
6. On the other hand, water is necessary, 1st, because it is com- 
mandecL 2d. Because it is essential to the symbolism of the rite. 
It is the natural symbol of moral purification, Eph. v., 25, 26 ; 
and it was established as such in the ritual of Moses. 

3. What is necessary as to the form of words in which bap- 
tism is administered t 

It is essential to the validity of the ordinance that it should 
be administered " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Grhost." This is certain, 1st, because it is included 



480 BAPTISM. 

in the command, Matt, xxviii., 19. 2d. From the significancy of 
the rite. Besides being a symbol of purification, it is essentially, 
as a rite of initiation into the Christian church, a covenanting 
ordinance whereby the recipient recognizes and pledges his allegi- 
ance to God in that character and in those relations in which he 
has revealed himself to us in the Scriptures. The formula of 
baptism, therefore, is a summary statement of the whole Scrip- 
ture doctrine of the Triune Jehovah as he has chosen to reveal 
himself to us, and in all those relations which the several Persons 
of the Trinity graciously sustain in the scheme of redemption to 
the believer. Hence the baptism of all those sects which reject 
the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is invalid. 

The frequent phrases, to be baptized in " the name of Jesus 
Christ/' or "in the name of the Lord Jesus," or "in the name of 
the Lord/' (Acts ii. 38 ; x., 48 ; xix., 5,) do not at all present 
the form of words which the apostles used in administering this 
sacrament, but are simply used to designate Christian baptism in 
distinction from that of John, or to indicate the uniform effect of 
that spiritual grace which is symbolized in baptism, viz., union 
with Christ, Gal. iii., 27. 

4. What is the meaning of the formula " to baptize in the name 
(elg to ovofia) of any one" ? 

To be baptized " in the name of Paul/' (slg to dvofia,) 1 Cor. 
i., 13, or " unto Moses," (elg tov Muvgtjv,) 1 Cor. x., 2, is, on the 
part of the baptized, to be made the believing and obedient dis- 
ciples of Paul and Moses, and the objects of their care, and the 
participants in whatever blessings they have to bestow. To be 
baptized in the name of the Trinity, (Matt, xxviii., 19,) or " in 
the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts xix., 5,) or "into Jesus 
Christ," (Rom. vi., 3,) is by baptism, or rather by the grace of 
which ritual baptism is the sign to be united to Christ, or to the 
Trinity through Christ, as his disciples, believers in his doctrine, 
heirs of his promises, and participants in his spiritual life. 

5. What is the design of baptism ? 
Its design is — 

1st. Primarily, to signify seal and convey to those to whom 
they belong the benefits of the covenant of grace. Thus (1.) It 



EMBLEMATIC IMPORT OF BAPTISM. 481 

symbolizes " the washing of regeneration/' " the renewing of the 
, Holy Ghost/' which unites the believer to Christ, and so makes 
him a participant in Christ's life and all other benefits, 1 Cor. xii., 
13 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; Titus iii., 5. (2.) Christ herein visibly seals 
his promises to those who receive it with faith, and invests them 
with the grace promised. 

2d. Its design was, secondarily, as springing from the former, 
(1.) to be a visible sign of our covenant to be the Lord's, i. e., to 
accept his salvation, and to consecrate ourselves to his service. 
(2.) And, hence, to be a badge of our public profession, our sepa- 
ration from the world, and our initiation into the visible church. 
As a badge it marks us as belonging to the Lord, and consequently 
a distinguishes us from the world, b symbolizes our union with 
our fellow- Christians, 1 Cor. xii., 13. 

6. What is the emblematic import of baptism ? 

In every sacrament there is a visible sign representing an in- 
visible grace. The sign represents the grace in virtue of Christ's 
authoritatively appointing it thereto, but the selection by Christ 
of the particular sign is founded on its fitness as a natural em- 
blem of the grace which he appoints it to represent. Thus in the 
Lord's supper the bread broken by the officiating minister, and the 
wine poured out, are natural emblems of the body of Christ broken, 
and his blood shed as a sacrifice for our sins. And in like man- 
ner in the sacrament of baptism the application of water to the 
person of the recipient is a natural emblem of the " washing of 
regeneration," Titus hi., 5. Hence we are said to be " born of 
water and of the Spirit," John iii., 5, i. e., regenerated by the 
Holy Spirit, of which new birth baptism with water is the em- 
blem ; and to be baptized "by one Spirit into one body," i. e., the 
spiritual body of Christ ; and to be " baptised into Christ," so as 
" to have put on Christ," Gal. iii., 27 ; and to be " baptized into 
his death," and to be " buried with him in baptism ... so 
that we should walk with him in newness of life," Eom. vi., 3, 4, 
because the sacrament of baptism is the emblem of that spiritual 
regeneration which unites us both federally and spiritually to 
Christ, so that we have part with him both in his life and in his 
death, and as he died unto sin as a sacrifice, so we die unto sin 
in its ceasing to be the. controling principle of our natures, and as. 

31 



482 BAPTISM. 

he rose again in the resumption of his natural life, we rise to the 
possession and exercise of a new spiritual life. 

Baptist interpreters, on the other hand, insist that the Bible 
teaches that the outward sign in this sacrament, being the immer- 
sion of the whole body in water, is an emblem both of purifica- 
tion and of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Dr. 
Carson says, p. 381, " The immersion of the whole body is essen- 
tial to baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be an 
emblem of purification, but because immersion is the thing com- 
manded, and because that, without immersion, there is no em- 
blem of death, burial and resurrection, which are in the emblem 
equally with purification." He founds his assumption that the 
outward sign in the sacrament of baptism was designed to be an 
emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer in 
union with Christ, upon Kom. vi., 3, 4, and Col. ii., 12. 

We object to this interpretation, 1st, in neither of those pas- 
sages does Paul say that our baptism in ivater is an emblem of 
our burial with Christ. He is evidently speaking of that spir- 
itual baptism of which water baptism is the emblem ; by which 
spiritual baptism we are caused to die unto sin, and live unto 
holiness, in which death and new life we are conformed unto the 
death and resurrection of Christ. We are said to be " baptised into 
Christ/' which is the work of the Spirit, not " into the name of 
Christ/' which is the phrase always used when speaking of ritual 
baptism, Matt, xxviii., 19 ; Acts ii., 38 ; xix., 5. 2d. To bo 
" baptized into his death" is a phrase perfectly analogous to bap- 
tism " into repentance," Matt, iii., 11, and " into remission of 
sins/ 5 Mark i., 4, and " into one body," 1 Cor. xii., 13, i. e., in 
order that, or to the effect that we participate in the benefits of 
his death. 

3d. The Baptist interpretation involves an utter confusion in 
reference to the emblem. Do they mean that the outward sign 
of immersion is an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection 
of Christ, or of the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of the 
believer ? But the point of comparison in the passages them- 
selves is plainly " not between our baptism and the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, but between our death to sin and rising to 
holiness, and the death and resurrection of the Kedeemer." 
4th. Baptists agree with us that baptism with water is an em- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 483 

bleiii of spiritual purification, *. e., regeneration, but insist that 
it is also an emblem (in the mode of immersion) of the death of 
the believer to sin and his new life of holiness. — Dr. Carson ; p. 
143. But what is the distinction between regeneration and a 
death unto sin, and life unto holiness ? 

5th. Baptists agree with us that water baptism is an emblem 
of purification. But surely it is impossible that the same action 
should at the same time be an emblem of a washing, and of a 
burial and a resurrection. One idea may be associated with the 
the other in consequence of their spiritual relations, but it is 
impossible that the same visible sign should be emblematical of 
both. 

6th. Our union with Christ through the Spirit, and the spirit- 
ual consequences thereof, are illustrated in Scripture by many 
various figures, e. g., the substitution of a heart of flesh for a 
heart of stone, Ezek. xxxvi., 26 ; the building of a house, Eph. 
ii., 22 ; the ingrafting of a limb into a vine, John xv., 5 ; the 
putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean, Eph. 
iv., 22-24 ; as a spiritual death, burial and resurrection, and as a 
being planted in the likeness of his death, Kom. vi., 3-5 ; as the 
application of a cleansing element to the body, Ezek. xxxvi., 25. 
Now baptism with water represents all these, because it is an em- 
blem of spiritual regeneration, of which all of these are analogical 
illustrations. Hence we are said to be "baptized into one body," 
1 Cor. xii., 13, and by baptism to "have put on Christ," Gal. iii., 
27. Yet it would be absurd to regard water baptism as a literal 
emblem of all these, and our Baptist brethren have no scriptural 
warrant for assuming that the outward sign in this sacrament is 
an emblem of the one analogy more than of the other. See Dr. 
Armstrong's " Doctrine of Baptisms," Part II., Chap. II. 

The mode of baptism. 

7. What are the words tvhich, in the original language of 
Scripture, are used to convey the command to baptize ? 

The primary word jSanrco occurs four times in the New Testa- 
ment, (Luke xvi., 24, John xiii., 26, Bev. xix., 13,) but never in 
connection with the subject of Christian baptism. Its classical 
meaning was, 1st, to dip ; 2d, to dye. 



484 BAPTISM. 

* 

The word jSaTTifw, in form ; though not in usage, the frequent- 
ative of pdnrG), occurs seventy-six times in the New Testament, 
and is the word used by the Holy Ghost to convey the command 
to baptize. Its classical meaning was dip, submerge, sink. Be- 
sides these, we have the nouns of the same root and usage, 
{3diTTio[j,a occurring twenty-two times, translated baptism, and 
j3aTrriafj,6g occurring four times, translated baptism, Heb. vi, 2, 
and washing, Mark vii., 4, 8 ; Heb. ix., 10. The only question 
with which we are concerned, however, is as to the scriptural 
usage of these words. It is an important and universally recog- 
nized principle, that the biblical and classical usage of the same 
word is often very different. This effect is to be traced to the 
influence of three general causes. 

1st. The principal classics of the language were composed in 
the Attic dialect. But the general language used by the Greek- 
speaking world at the Christian era was the " common, or Hel- 
lenic dialect of the later Greek," resulting from the fusion of the 
different dialects previously existing. 

2d. The language of the writers of the New Testament was 
again greatly modified by the fact that their vernacular was a 
form of the Hebrew language (Syro-Chaldaic) ; that their con- 
stant use of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures 
had largely influenced their usage of the Greek language, espe- 
cially in the department of religious thought and expression ; and 
that, in the very act of composing the New Testament Scrip- 
tures, they were engaged in the statement of religious ideas, and 
in the inauguration of religious institutions which had their types 
and symbols in the ancient dispensation, as revealed in the sacred 
language of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

3d. The New Testament writings are a revelation of new ideas 
and relations, and hence the words and phrases through which 
these new thoughts are conveyed must be greatly modified in re- 
spect to their former etymological sense and heathen usage, and 
" for the full depth and compass of meaning belonging to them 
in their new application we must look to the New Testament 
itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the lan- 
guage used in the light of the great things which it brings to our 
apprehension/' 

As examples of this contrast between the scriptural and clas- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 485 

sical usage of a word, observe, dyyeXog, angel ; ttq£o(5vt£qoc , pres- 
byter or elder ; tnnXnoia, church ; PaaiXela ~ov deov, or tcjv 
ovpavtiv, kingdom of God, or of heaven ; nakiyyevEoia, regenera- 
tion ; %dgig , grace, etc., etc. — Fairbairn's " Herm. Manual/' 
Part I., section 2. 

8. What is the position of the Baptist churches as to the mean- 
ing of the Scriptural word fiaTcrifa, and by what arguments do 
they seek to prove that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- 
tism ? 

" That it always signifies to dip, never expressing any thing 
but mode/'' — Carson on Baptism, p. 55. They insist, therefore, 
upon always translating the word Bchtti^g) and $a-nTio\ia by the 
words immerse and immersion. 

They argue that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism, 
1st, from the constant meaning of the word j3anri^(o. 2d. From 
the symbolical import of the rite, as emblematic of burial and 
resurrection. 3d. From the practice of the apostles. 4th. From 
history of the early church. 

9. What is the position occupied upon this point by all other 
Christians ? 

1st. It is an established principle of scriptural usage that the 
names and attributes of the things signified by sacramental signs 
are attributed to the signs, and on the other hand that the name 
of the sign is used to designate the grace signified. Thus, Gen. 
xvii., 11, 13, the name of covenant is given to circumcision ; 
Matt, xxvi., 26-28, Christ called the bread his body, and the wine 
his blood ; Titus iii., 5, baptism is called the washing of regenera- 
tion. Thus also the words baptize and baptism are often used 
to designate that work of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, which 
the sign, or water baptism, signifies, Matt, iii., 11 ; 1 Cor. xii., 
13 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; Deut. xxx., 6. It follows consequently that 
these words are often used in a spiritual sense. 

2d. These words when relating to ritual baptism, or the sign 
representing the thing signified, imply the application of water in 
the name of the Trinity, as an emblem of purification or spiritual 
regeneration, and never, in their scriptural usage, signify any 
thing whatever as to the mode in which the water is applied. 



486 BAPTISM. 

I have answered, under question 6, above, the second baptist 
argument, as stated under question 8. Their first and third argu- 
ments, as there stated, I will proceed to answer now. 

10. How may it be proved from their scriptural usage that 
the words (3anTi%(o and pdnnofia do not signify immersion, but 
washing to effect purification, without any reference to mode f 

1st. The word occurs four times in the Septuagint translation 
of the Old Testament, in three of which instances it refers to bap- 
tism with water. 2 Kings v., 14 — The prophet told Naanian to 
" wash and be clean/' and " he baptized himself in Jordan, and 
he was clean." Eccle. xxxiv., 25 — " He that baptiseth himself 
after the touching of a dead body." This purification according 
to the law was accomplished by sprinkling the ivater of separa- 
tion, Num. xix., 9, 13, 20. Judith xii., 7, Judith " baptized her- 
self in the camp at a fountain of water." Bathing was not per- 
formed among those nations by immersion ; and the circumstances 
in which Judith was placed increase the improbability in her case. 
It was a purification for she " baptized herself," and " so came 
in clean!' 

2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples 
and the Jews, John iii., 22-30, and iv., 1-3, concerning baptism 
is called a question concerning purification, negl KadapiG[iov. 

3d. Matt, xv., 2 ; Mark vii., 1-5 ; Luke xi., 37-39. The 
word PanTi^c) is here used (1.) for the customary washing of the 
hands before meals, which was designed to purify, and was habit- 
ually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings iii., 11 : 
(2.) it is interchanged with the word vltttg), which always signi- 
fies a partial washing ; (3.) its effect is declared to be to purify, 
KaOapifriv ; (4.) the baptized or washed hands are opposed to the 
unclean, Koivalg ' 

4th. Mark vii., 4, 8, " Baptism of pots and cups, brazen ves- 
sels, and of tables," nXivai, couches upon which Jews reclined at 
their meals, large enough to accommodate several persons at once. 
The object of these baptisms was purification, and the mode could 
not have been immersion in the case of the tables, couches, etc. 

5th. Heb. ix., 10, Paul says the first tabernacle "stood only 
in meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms." In verses 13, 19, 21, 
he specifies some of these " divers baptisms" or washings, " For 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 487 

if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprink- 
ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh/' and 
" Moses sprinkled both the book and all the people, and the tab- 
ernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry." — Dr. Armstrong's 
■'Doc. of Bapt.," Parti. 

11. What argument in favor of this view of the subject 
may be drawn from what is said of baptism with the Holy 
Ghost ? 

Matt, iii., 11 ; Mark i., 8 ; Luke iii., 16 ; John i., 26, 33 ; 
Acts i., 5 ; xi., 16 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13. 

If the word fiaiTTifa only means to immerse, it would be inca- 
pable of the figurative use to which, in these passages, it is actu- 
ally subjected. But if, as we claim, it signifies to purify, to 
cleanse, then water baptism, as a washing, though never as an 
immersion, may fitly represent the cleansing work of the Holy 
Ghost. See next question. 

12. What argument may be drawn from the fact that the bles- 
sings symbolized by baptism are said to be applied by sprinkling 
and pouring ? 

The gift of the Holy Ghost was the grace signified, Acts ii., 
1-4, 32, 33; x., 44-48; xi., 15, 16. The fire which did not 
immerse them, but appeared as cloven tongues, and " sat upon 
each one of them/' was the sign of that grace. Jesus was him- 
self the baptizer, who now fulfilled the prediction of John the 
Baptist that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire. This gift of the Holy Ghost is set forth in such terms as 
"came from heaven/' "poured out," "shed forth/' "fell on 
them." 

These very blessings were predicted in the Old Testament by 
similar language, Is. xliv., 3 ; Hi., 15 ; Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27 ; Joel 
ii., 28, 29. Hence we argue that if these spiritual blessings were 
predicted in the Old Testament by means of these figures of 
sprinkling and pouring, and if in the New Testament they were 
symbolically set forth under the same form, they mayj of course, 
be symbolized by the church now by the same emblematical 
actions. 



488 BAPTISM. 

13. What argument may be drawn from the mode of purifica- 
tion adopted under the Old Testament ? 

The rites of purification prescribed by the Leviiical law were 
in no case commanded to be performed by immersion in the case 
of persons. Washing and bathing is prescribed, but there is no 
indication given by the words used, or otherwise, that these were 
performed by immersion, which was not the usual mode of bathing 
practiced in those countries. The hands and feet of the priests, 
whenever they appeared to minister before the Lord, were washed, 
Ex. xxx., 18-21, and their personal ablutions were performed at 
the brazen laver, 2 Chron. iv., 6, from which the water poured 
forth through spouts or cocks, 1 Kings vii., 27-39. On the other 
hand, purification was freely ordered to be effected by sprinkling 
of blood, ashes, or water, Lev. viii., 30 ; xiv., 7, and 51 ; Ex. 
xxiv., 5-8 ; Num. viii., 6, 7 ; Heb. ix., 12-22. Now, as Chris- 
tian baptism is a purification, and as it was instituted among the 
Jews, familiar with the Jewish forms of purification, it follows 
that a knowledge of those forms must throw much light upon the 
essential nature and proper mode of the Christian rite. 

14. How may it be shown from 1 Cor. x., 1, 2, and from 1 
Pet. iii., 20, 21, that to baptize does not mean to immerse ? 

1 Cor. x., 1, 2. The Israelites are said to have been " bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Compare Ex. xiv., 
19-31. The Israelites were baptized, yet went over dry-shod. 
The Egyptians were immersed, yet not baptized. Dr. Carson, 
p. 413, says, Moses " got a dry dip." 

1 Pet. iii., 20, 21. Peter declares that baptism is the anti- 
type of the salvation of the eight souls in the ark. Yet their sal- 
vation consisted in their not being immersed. 

15. Was the baptism of John Christian baptism ? 

John was the last Old Testament prophet, Matt, xi., 13, 14. 
He came " in the spirit and power of Elias," Luke i., 17, in the 
garb, with the manners, and teaching the doctrine of the ancient 
prophets. He preached that the " kingdom of heaven was at 
hand/' and pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God. His baptism 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 489 

was a purification, emblematic of repentance, which Christ had 
come to give, Acts v., 31. 

It was not Christian baptism, because, 1st, it was not adminis- 
tered in the name of the Trinity. 2d. It was not a rite of initia- 
tion into any church, John himself belonging to the old economy. 
3d. Those who had only received John's baptism were rebaptized 
by Paul, Acts xviii., 24-26 ; xix., 1-7. 

16. What argument as to the proper mode of baptism is to be 
drawn from the record of the baptisms performed by John ? 

1st. John's baptism was not the Christian sacrament, but a 
rite of purification administered by a Jew upon Jews, under 
Jewish law. From this we infer (1.) that it was not performed 
by immersion, since the Levitical purification of persons was not 
performed in that way ; yet (2.) that he needed for his purpose 
either a running stream as Jordan, or much water as at iEnon 
(or the springs), because under that law whatsoever an unclean 
person touched previous to his purification became unclean, Num. 
xix., 21, 22, with the exception of a "fountain or pit in which is 
plenty of water," Lev. xi., 36, which he could not find in the 
desert in which he preached. After the gospel dispensation was 
introduced we hear nothing of the apostles baptizing in rivers, or 
needing " much water" for that purpose. 

2d. In no single instance is it stated in the record that John 
baptized by immersion. All the language employed applies just 
as naturally and as accurately to a baptism performed by affusion 
(the subject standing partly in the water, the baptizer pouring 
water upon the person with his hand.) The phrases " baptized 
in Jordan," " coming out of the water," would have been as accu- 
rately applied in the one case as in the other. That John's bap- 
tism was more probably performed by affusion appears (1.) from 
the fact that it was a purification performed by a Jewish prophet 
upon Jews, and that Jewish washings were performed by affusion. 
The custom was general then, and has continued to this day. 
(2.) This mode better accords with the vast multitudes bap- 
tized by one man, Matt, iii., 5, 6 ; Mark i., 5 ; Luke iii., 3-21. 
(3.) The very earliest works of Christian art extant represent the 
baptism of Christ by John as having been performed by affusion. — 
Dr. Armstrong's " Doctrine of Baptisms," Part II., Chap. III. 



490 BAPTISM. 

17. What evidence is afforded by the instances of Christian 
baptism recorded in the New Testament ? 

1st. It has been abundantly shown above that the command 
to baptize is a command to purify by washing with water, and 
it hence follows that even if it could be shown that the apostles 
baptized by immersion, that fact would not prove that particular 
mode of washing to be essential to the validity of the ordinance, 
unless it can be proved also that, according to the analogies of 
gospel institutions, the mere mode of obeying a command is made 
as essential as the thing itself. But the reverse is notoriously the 
fact. The church was organized on certain general principles, 
and the public worship of the gospel ordained, but the details as 
to the manner of accomplishing those ends are not prescribed. 
Christ instituted the Lord's supper at night, reclining on a couch, 
and with unleavened bread. Yet in none of these respects is the 
" mode" essential. 

2d. But, in fact, there is not one instance in which the record 
makes it even probable that the apostles baptized by immersion, 
and in the great majority of instances it is rendered in the last 
degree improbable. 

(1.) The baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, Acts viii., 26-39, 
is the only instance which even by appearance favors immersion. 
But observe a the language used by Luke, even as rendered in 
our version, applies just as naturally to baptism performed by 
affusion as by immersion, b The Greek prepositions, elg, here 
translated into, and en, here translated out of, are in innumerable 
instances used to express motion, toward, unto and from, Acts 
xxvi., 14 ; xxvii, 34, 40. They probably descended from the 
chariot to the brink of the water. Philip is also said to have 
" descended to" and to have " ascended from the water," but 
surely he was not also immersed, c The very passage of Isaiah, 
which the Eunuch was reading, Is. Hi., 15, declared that the 
Messiah, in whom he believed, should " sprinkle many nations." 
d Luke says the place was " a desert," and no body of water suf- 
ficient for immersion can be discovered on that road. (2.) Every 
other instance of Christian baptism recorded in the Scriptures 
bears evidence positively against immersion, a The baptism of 
three thousand in Jerusalem on one occasion on the day of Pen- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 491 

tecost, Acts ii., 38-41. b The baptism of Paul, Acts ix., 17, 18 ; 
xxii., 12-16. Annanias said to him " standing up, be baptized/' 
dvaardg p&nrioai, and, "standing, up he was baptized." c The 
baptism of Cornelius, Acts x., 44-48. d The baptism of the 
jailor, at Philippi, Acts xvi., 32-34. In all these instances bap- 
tism was administered on the spot, wherever the convert received 
the gospel. Nothing is said of rivers, or much water, but vast 
multitudes at a time, and individuals and families were baptized 
in their houses, or in prisons, wherever they happened to be at 
the moment. 

Subjects of baptism. 

18. Who are the proper subjects of baptism ? 

Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., section 4 ; L. Cat., question 
166 ; S. Cat., question 95. 

All those, and those only, who are members of the visible 
church, are to be baptized. These are, 1st, they who make a 
credible profession of their faith in Christ ; 2d, the children of 
one or both believing parents. 

19. What in the case of adults are the prerequisites of bap- 
tism ? 

Credible profession of their faith in Jesus as their Saviour. 
This is evident, 1st, from the very nature of the ordinance as 
symbolizing spiritual gifts, and as sealing our covenant to be the 
Lord's. See below, Chap. XL., question 23. 2d. From the 
uniform practice of the apostles and evangelists, Acts ii., 41 ; 
viii., 37. 

20. What is the visible church, to which baptism is the 
initiating rite ? 

1st. The word church, knitXrioia, is used in Scripture in the 
general sense of the company of God's people, called out from the 
world, and bound to him in covenant relations. 

2d. The true spiritual church, therefore, in distinction to the 
phenominal church organized on earth, consists of the whole com- 
pany of the elect, who. are included in the eternal covenant of 



492 BAPTISM. 

grace formed between the Father and the second Adam, Eph. v., 
27 ; Heb. xii., 23. 

3d. But the visible church universal consists of " all those 
throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with 
their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary pos- 
sibility of salvation," Conf. Faith, Chap. XXV., section 2. This 
visible kingdom, Christ, as Mediator of the covenant of grace, has 
instituted, as an administrative provision, for the purpose of ad- 
ministering thereby the provisions of that covenant ; and this 
kingdom, as an outward visible society of professors, he established 
by the covenant he made with Abraham, Gen. xii., 1-3 ; xvii., 
1-14. 

4th. Christ has administered this covenant in three successive 
modes or dispensations. (1.) From Abraham to Moses, during 
which he attached to it the ratifying seal of circumcision. (2.) 
From Moses to his advent, (for the law which was temporarily 
added did not make the promise of none effect, but rather admin- 
istered it in a special mode, Gal. iii., 17,) he added a new seal, 
the passover, emblematic of the atoning work of the promised 
seed, as set forth in the clearer revelation then vouchsafed. (3.) 
From Christ to the end of the world, when the promise being 
unfolded in an incomparably fuller revelation, the original seals 
are superseded by baptism and the Lord's supper. See below, 
question 21. 

5th. That the Abrahamic covenant was designed to embrace 
the visible church of Christ, and not his mere natural seed in 
their family or national capacity, is plain. (1.) It pledged sal- 
vation by Christ on the condition of faith. Compare Gen. xii., 3, 
with Gal. iii., 8, 16 ; Acts iii., 25, 26. (2.) The sign and seal 
attached to it symbolized spiritual blessings, and sealed justifica- 
tion by faith, Deut. x., 15, 16 ; xxx., 6 ; Jer. iv., 4 ; Kom. ii., 
28, 29 ; iv., 11. (3.) This covenant was made with him as the 
representative of the visible church universal, a It was made 
with him as the "father of many nations." Paul said it consti- 
tuted him the " heir of the world," " the father of all them that 
believe," Rom. iv., 11, 13, and that all believers in Christ now, 
Jew or Gentile, are " Abraham's seed and heirs according to the 
promise," Gal. iii., 29. b It contained a provision for the intro- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 493 

duction to its privileges of those who were not born of the natu- 
ral seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii., 12. Multitudes of such prose- 
lytes had been thus introduced before the advent of Christ, and 
many such were present in Jerusalem as members of the church 
under its old form on the day of Pentecost, " out of every nation 
under heaven/' Acts ii., 5-11. 

6th. That the church thus embraced in this administrative 
covenant is not the body of the elect, as such, but the visible 
church of professors and their children, is evident, because, (1.) 
the covenant contains the offer of the gospel, including the setting 
forth of Christ, and the offer of his salvation to all men (all the 
families of the earth) on the condition of faith, Gal. iii., 8. But 
this belongs to the visible church, and must be administered by 
means of inspired oracles and a visible ministry. (2.) As an in- 
disputable fact, there was such a visible society under the old 
dispensation ; and under the new dispensation all Christians, 
whatever theories they may entertain, attempt to realize the ideal 
of such a visible society, for Christian and ministerial commu- 
nion. (3.) Under both dispensations Christ has committed to 
his church, as to a visible kingdom, written records, sacramental 
ordinances, ecclesiastical institutions, and a teaching and ruling 
ministry. Although these are all designed to minister the pro- 
visions of the covenant of grace, and to effect as their ultimate 
end the ingathering of the elect, it is evident that visible signs 
and seals, a written word and a visible ministry, can, as such, 
attach only to a visible church, Eom. ix., 4 ; Eph. iv., 11. (4.) 
The same representation of the church is given in the New Tes- 
tament, in the parable of the tares, etc., Matt, xiii., 24-30, and 
47-50 ; xxv., 1-13. It was to consist of a mixed community of 
good and evil, true and merely professed believers, and the sepa- 
ration is not to be made until the " end of the world/' 

7th. This visible church from the beginning has been trans- 
mitted and extended in a twofold manner. (1.) Those who are 
born " strangers from the covenants of promise," or " aliens from 
the commonwealth of Israel/' Eph. ii., 12, were introduced to 
that relation only by profession of faith and conformity of life. 
Under the old dispensation these are called proselytes. Acts ii., 
10 ; Num. xv., 15. (2.) All born within the covenant had part 
in all of the benefits of a standing in the visible church by inheri- 



494 BAPTISM. 

tance. The covenant was with Abraham and his " seed after 
him, in all their generations, as an everlasting covenant" and 
consequently they received the sacrament which was the sign 
and seal of that covenant. Hence the duty of teaching and train- 
ing was engrafted on the covenant, Gen. xviii., 18, 19 ; and the 
church made a school, or training institution, Deut. vi., 6-9. In 
accordance with this, Christ commissioned his apostles to disciple 
all nations, baptizing and teaching them, Matt, xxviii., 19, 20. 
Thus the church is represented as a flock, including the lambs with 
the sheep, Is. xl., 11, and as a vineyard in which the scion is 
trained, the barren tree cultivated, and. if incurable, cut down, 
Is. v. 1-7 ; Luke xiii., 7, 8. 

21. How may it be shoivn that this visible church is identical 
under both dispensations, and what argument may be thence de- 
rived to prove that the infant children of believers should be bap- 
tized ? 

1st. The church, under both dispensations, has the same na- 
ture and design. The Old Testament church, embraced in the 
Abrahamic convenant, rested on the gospel offer of salvation by 
faith, Gal. iii., 8 ; Heb. xi. Its design was to prepare a spiritual 
seed for the Lord. Its sacraments symbolized and sealed the 
same grace as those of the New Testament church. Thus the 
passover, as the Lord's supper, represented the sacrifice of Christ, 
1 Cor. v., 7. Circumcision, as baptism, represented " the put- 
ting off the body of the sins of the flesh," and baptism is called by 
Paul "the circumcision of Christ," Col. ii., 11, 12. Even the 
ritual of the Mosaic law was only a symbolical revelation of the 
gospel. 

2d. They bear precisely the same name. EKKX^oia kvq'iov, the 
church of the Lord, is an exact rendering in Greek of the Hebrew 
" )™ Vrij? translated in our version the " congregation of the Lord/' 
Compare Ps. xxii.,22, with Heb. ii., 12. Thus Stephen called 
the congregation of Israel before Sinai " the church in the wilder- 
ness." Compare Acts vii., 38, with Ex. xxxii. Thus also Christ 
is the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, and the elders of the 
New Testament church are indentical in function and name with 
those of the synagogue. 

3d. There is no evidence whatever furnished by the apostolical 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 495 

records that the ancient church was abolished and a new and a differ- 
ent one organized in its place. The apostles never say one word about 
any such new organization. The preexistence of such a visible 
society is everywhere taken for granted as a fact. Their disciples 
were always added to the "church" or "congregation" previously 
existing, Acts ii., 47. The Mosaic ritual law, by means of which 
the Abrahamic character of the church had been administered for 
about fifteen hundred years, was indeed abolished. But Paul 
argues that the introduction of this law, four hundred and thirty 
years after, could not make the promise of none effect, Gal. iii., 
17, and consequently the disannulling of the law could only give 
place to the more perfect execution of the covenant, and develop- 
ment of the church embraced within it. 

4th. There is abundant positive evidence that the ancient 
church, resting upon its original charter, was not abolished by 
the new dispensation. (1.) Many of the Old Testament prophe- 
cies plainly declare that the then existing visible church, instead 
of being abrogated by the advent of the Messiah, should thereby 
be gloriously strengthened and enlarged, so as to embrace the 
Gentiles also, Is. xlix., 13-23, and lx., 1-14. They declare also 
that the federal constitution, embracing the child with the parent, 
shall continue under the new dispensation of the church, after 
" the Redeemer has come to Zion," Is. lix., 21, 22. Peter, in 
Acts iii., 22, 23, expounds the prophecy of Moses, Deut. xviii,, 
15-19, to the effect that every soul which will not hear that prophet 
(the Messiah) shall be cut off from among the people, i. e., from 
the church, which of course implies that the church from which 
they are cut off continues. (2.) In precise accordance with these 
prophecies Paul declares that the Jewish church was not abro- 
gated, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off from their own 
olive tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in in their place ; and he 
foretells the time when God will graft the Jews back again into 
their own stock and not into another, Rom. xi., 18-26. He says 
that the alien Gentiles are made fellow-citizens with believing 
Jews in the old household of the faith, Eph. ii., 11-22. (3.) The 
covenant which constituted the ancient church also constituted 
Abraham the father of many nations. The promise of the covenant 
was that God would "'be a God unto him and to his seed after 
him." This covenant, therefore, embraced the " many nations" 



496 BAPTISM. 

with their father Abraham. Hence it never could have been ful- 
filled until the advent of the Messiah, and the abolishment of the 
restrictive law. Hence the Abrahamic covenant, instead of hav- 
ing been superseded by the gospel, only now begins to have its 
just accomplishment. Hence, on the day of Pentecost, Peter 
exhorts all to repent and be baptized, because the Abrahamic 
covenant still held in force for all Jews and for their children, and 
for all those afar off, i. e., Gentiles, as many as God should call, 
Acts ii., 38, 39. Hence also Paul argued earnestly that since the 
Abrahamic covenant is still in force, therefore, from its very terms, 
the Gentiles who should believe in Christ had a right to a place 
in that ancient church, which was founded upon it, on equal terms 
with the Jews. " In thee shall all nations be blessed, so then," 
says Paul, " they which be of faith are blessed with faithful 
Abraham/' and all who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentle indis- 
criminately, " are" to the full intent of the covenant, " Abraham's 
seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. iii., 6-29, which 
promise was, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
thee/' 

The bearing of this argument upon the question of infant 
baptism is direct and conclusive. 

1st. Baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant 
and the church which circumcision did. (1.) Both rites repre- 
sent the same spiritual grace, namely, regeneration, Deut. xxx., 
6 ; Col. ii., 11 ; Eom. vi., 3, 4. (2.) Baptism is now what cir- 
cumcision was, the seal, or confirming sign, of the Abrahamic 
covenant. Peter says, " be baptized for the promise is to you 
and to your children," Acts, ii., 38, 39. Paul says explicitly that 
baptism is the sign of that covenant, " for as many as have been 
baptized into Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise," Gal. iii., 27, 29 ; and that baptism is the circum- 
cision of Christ, Col. ii., 10, 11. (3.) Both rites are the appointed 
forms, in successive eras, of initiation into the church, which we 
have proved to be the same church under both dispensations. 

2d. Since the church is the same, in the absence of all explicit 
command to the contrary, the members are the same. Children 
of believers were members then. They ought to be recognized 
as members now, and receive the initiatory rite. This the apostles 
took for granted as self-evident, and universally admitted ; an 






SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 497 



explicit command to baptize would have implied doubt in the 
ancient church rights of infants. 

3d. Since the covenant, with its promise to be " a God to the 
believer and his seed/' is expressly declared to stand firm under 
the gospel, the believer's seed have a right to the seal of that 
promise. — Dr. John M. Mason's " Essays on the Church." 

22. Present the evidence that Christ recognized the church 
standing of children. 

1st. Christ declares of little children (Matthew, iraiS'ia, Luke 
figfyri, infants) that " of such is the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 
xix., 14 ; Luke xviii., 16. The phrase " kingdom of God and 
of heaven" signifies the visible church under the new dispensation, 
Matt, iii., 2 ; xiii., 47. 

2d. In his recommission of Peter, after his apostasy, our Lord 
commanded him as under shepherd to feed the lambs, as well as 
the sheep of the flock, John xxi., 15-17. 

3d. In his general commission of the apostles, he commanded 
them to disciple nations (which are always constituted of fami- 
lies) by baptizing, and then teaching them, Matt, xxviii., 19, 20. 

23. Show that the apostles aliuays acted on the principle that 
the child is a church member if the parent is. 

The apostles were not settled pastors in the midst of an estab- 
lished Christian community, but itinerant missionaries to an un- 
believing world, sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, 1 
Cor. i., 17. Hence we have in the Acts and Epistles the record 
of only ten separate instances of baptism. In two of these, viz., 
of the eunuch and of Paul, Acts viii., 38 ; ix., 18, there were no 
families to be baptized. In the case of the three thousand on the 
day of Pentecost, the people of Samaria, and the disciples of John 
at Ephesus, crowds were baptized on the very spot on which they 
professed to believe. Of the remaining five instances, in the four 
cases in which the family is mentioned at all, it is expressly said 
they were baptized, viz., the households of Lydia of Thyatira, of 
the jailer of Philippi, of Stephanas, and of Crispus, Acts xvi, 15, 
32, 33 ; xviii., 8 ; 1 Cor. i., 16. In the remaining instance of Cor- 
nelius, the record implies that the family was also baptized. 

32 



498 BAPTISM. 

Thus the apostles in every case, without a single recorded excep- 
tion, baptized believers on the spot, and whenever they had fami- 
lies, they also baptized their households, as such. 

They also addressed children in their epistles as members of 
the church. Compare Eph. i., 1, and Col. i., 1, 2, with Eph. vi., 
1-3, and Col. iii., 20. And declared that even the children of 
only one believing parent were to be regarded " holy/' or conse- 
crated to the Lord, i. e., as church members, 1 Cor. vii., 12-14. 

24. What argument mag be inferred from the fact that the 
blessings symbolized in baptism are promised and granted to 
children ? 

Baptism represents regeneration in union with Christ. In- 
fants are born children of wrath, even as others. They can not 
be saved, therefore, unless they are born again, and have part in 
the benefits of Christ's death. They are evidently, from the na- 
ture of the case, in the same sense capable of being subjects of 
regeneration as adults are. " Of such is the kingdom of heaven/' 
Matt, xxi., 15, 16 ; Luke i., 41, 44. 

25. What argument may be drawn from the practice of the 
early church ? 

The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists 
as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with the 
exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be definitely 
traced to the Anabaptists of G-ermany, about A. D. 1537. Such 
an institution must either have been handed down from the apos- 
tles, or have had a definite commencement as a novelty, which 
must have been signalized by opposition and controversy. As a 
fact, however, we find it noticed in the very earliest records as a 
universal custom, and an apostolical tradition. This is acknowl- 
edged by Tertullian, born in Carthage, A. D. 160, or only sixty 
years after the death of the apostle John. Origen, born of Chris- 
tian parents in Egypt, A. D. 185, declares that it was "the usage 
of the church to baptize infants," and that " the church had re- 
ceived the tradition from the apostles." St. Augustin, born A. D. 
354, declares that this " doctrine is held by the whole church, 
not instituted by councils, but always retained.'' 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 499 

26. How is the objection, that faith is a prerequisite to bap- 
tism, and that infants can not believe, to be ansiuered ? 

The Baptists argue, 1st, from the commission of the Lord, 
" Go preach — he that believeth and is baptized shall he saved ; 
he that believeth not shall be damned/' Mark xvi., 16, that in- 
fants ought not to be baptized because they can not believe. 2d. 
From the nature of baptism, as a sign of a spiritual grace and 
seal of a covenant, that infants ought not to be baptized since 
they are incapable of understanding the sign, or of contracting 
the covenant. 

We answer, 1st, the requisition of faith evidently applies 
only to the adult, because faith is made the essential prerequisite 
of salvation, and yet infants are saved, though they can not be- 
lieve. 2d. Circumcision was a sign of a spiritual grace ; it re- 
quired faith in the adult recipient, and it was the seal of a cove- 
nant ; yet, by G-od's appointment, infants were circumcised. The 
truth is that faith is required, but it is the faith of the parent 
acting for his child. The covenant of which baptism is the seal 
is contracted with the parent, but as it embraces the child the 
seal is properly applied to it also. 

27. How can ive avoid the conclusion that infants should be 
admitted to the Lord's supper, if they are admitted to baptism ? 

The same reason and the same precedents do not hold in re- 
lation to both sacraments. 1st. Baptism recognizes and seals 
church membership, while the Lord's supper is a commemorative 
act. 2d. In the action of baptism the subject is passive, and in 
that of the Lord's supper active. 3d. Infants were never admitted 
to the Passover until they were capable of comprehending the 
nature of the service. 4th. The apostles baptized households, 
but never admitted households as such to the supper, 

28. Wlxose children ought to be baptized ? 

" Infants of such as are members of the visible church/' S. 
Cat., Q. 95 ; that is, theoretically, " infants of one or both be- 
lieving parents," Con. of Faith, Chap. XXYIII., sec. 4 : and 
practically, "of parents, one or both of them professing faith in 
Christ." — L. Cat., Q. 166, Koman Catholics, Episcopalians, the 



500 BAPTISM. 

Protestants of the continent, the Presbyterians of Scotland (and 
formerly of this country), act upon the principle that every bap- 
tized person, not excommunicated, being himself a member of the 
visible church, has a right to have his child regarded and treated as 
such also. 

It is evident, however, from the following principles, that only 
the children of those who are professors of a personal faith in 
Christ ought to be baptized. 1st. The example of the apostles. 
They baptized the households only of believers. 2d. Faith is the 
condition of the covenant. If the parent is destitute of faith, the 
transaction is a mockery. 3d. Those who, having been baptized 
in infancy,, do not by faith and obedience discharge their baptismal 
vows when they are of mature age, forfeit their own birthright, 
and of course can not plead its benefits for their children. 

The efficacy of baptism. 

29. What is the Romish and High Church doctrine as to the 
efficacy of baptism ? 

The Eomish doctrine, with which the high church doctrine 
essentially agrees, is, 1st, that baptism confers the merits of Christ 
and the power of the Holy Ghost, and therefore (1.) it cleanses 
from inherent corruption ; (2.) it secures the remission of the 
penalty of sin ; (3.) it secures the infusion of sanctifying grace ; 
(4.) it unites to Christ ; (5.) it impresses upon the soul an in- 
delible character ; (6.) it opens the portals of heaven. — Cat. Rom., 
Pt. II., Chap. II., Q. 32-44. 2d. That the efficacy of the ordi- 
nance is inherent in itself in virtue of the divine institution. Its 
virtue does not depend either on the merit of the officiating min- 
ister, nor on that of the recipient, but in the sacramental action 
itself as an opus operatum. In the case of infants, the only con- 
dition of its efficiency is the right administration of the ordinance. 
In the case of adults its efficiency depends upon the additional 
condition that the recipient is not in mortal sin, and does not re- 
sist by an opposing will. — Dens De Baptismo, N. 29. 

30. What is the Lutheran doctrine on this subject ? 

The Lutherans agreed with the Reformed churches in repudi- 
ating the Romish doctrine of the magical efficacy of this sacra- 



EFFICACY OF BAPTISM. 501 

ment as an opus operatum. But they went much further than the 
Reformed in maintaining the sacramental union between the sign 
and the grace signified. Luther, in his Small Cat., Pt. IV., sec. 
2, says baptism, " worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death 
and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe," 
and, in sec. 3, that "it is not the water indeed which produces 
these effects, but the word of God which accompanies, and is con- 
nected with the water, and our faith, which relies on the word of 
God connected with the water. For the water without the word 
is simply water and no baptism. But when connected with the 
word of God, it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and 
a washing of regeneration/' 

31. What was the Zuinglian doctrine on this subject ? 

That the outward rite is a mere sign, an objective represen- 
tation by symbol of the truth, having no efficacy whatever beyond 
that due to the truth represented. 

32. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches, and of our 
own among the number, on this subject ? 

They all agree, 1st, that the Zuinglian view is incomplete. 

2d. That besides being a sign, baptism is also the seal of 
grace, and therefore, a present and sensible conveyance and con- 
firmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in himself, 
and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant of grace, 
to be sooner or later conveyed in God's good time. 

3d. That this conveyance is effected, not by the bare opera- 
tion of the sacramental action, but by the Holy Ghost, which 
accompanies his own ordinance. 

4th. That in the adult the reception of the blessing depends 
upon faith. 

5th. That the benefits conveyed by baptism are not peculiar 
to it, but belong to the believer before or without baptism, and 
are often renewed to him afterwards. 

Our Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., sections 5 and 6, affirms, 

" 1st. ' That by the right use of this ordinance the grace 
promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred 
by the Holy Ghost to such, (whether of age or infants,) as that 
grace belongeth unto.' 



502 BAPTISM. 

" 2d. That baptism does not in all cases secure the blessings 
of the covenant. 

" 3d. That in the cases in which it does the gift is not con- 
nected necessarily in time with the administration of the ordi- 
nance. 

" 4th. That these blessings depend upon two things : (1.) the 
right use of the ordinance ; (2.) the secret purpose of God/' — 
Dr. Hodge. 

The necessity of baptism. 

33. What is the Romish and Lutheran doctrine as to the ne- 
cessity of baptism ? 

They hold that the benefits conveyed by baptism are ordi- 
narily conveyed in no other way, and consequently, baptism is 
absolutely necessary in order to salvation, both for infants and 
adults. — Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, canon 4 ; Cat. Kom., Part II., 
Chap. II., question 28 ; Bellarmine Bapt., 1, 4 ; Augsburg Conf., 
article 9. The Papists except from this absolute necessity mar- 
tyrs, and those who, desiring, can not obtain baptism. 

34. What is the doctrine on this point of the Reformed 
churches ? 

They all agree that the necessity of baptism arises simply 
from the command of Christ to baptize ; and that the grace sig- 
nified belongs to all within the covenant, (whether adult or in- 
fant,) and would be attained by them with or without the sign 
and seal. — Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., section 5 ; Calvin's 
Institutes, 4, 16, 26. 

35. What opinion has prevailed as to lay baptism ? 

The Komanists and Lutherans believing in the absolute neces- 
sity of baptism as a means of salvation, have consequently always 
allowed the validity of baptism administered by laymen in cases 
of necessity. The Keformed, on the other hand, not believ- 
ing the ordinance to be necessary to salvation, have uniformly 
agreed that baptism is to be regarded valid only when adminis- 
tered by a regularly ordained minister. 



CHAPTER XL. 

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

1. What are the various phrases used in Scripture to desig- 
nate the Lord's supper, and their import ? 

1st. " Lord's Supper/' 1 Cor. xi., 20. The Greek word 
% delnvov, translated supper, designated the dinner, or principal 
meal of the Jews, taken towards or in the evening. Hence this 
sacrament received this name because it was instituted at that 
meal. It was called the " Lord's," because it was instituted by 
him, to commemorate his death, and signify and seal his grace. 

2d. " Cup of blessing," 1 Cor. x., 16. The cup was blessed 
by Christ, and the blessing of God is now invoked upon it by the 
officiating minister, Matt, xxvi., 26, 27. 

3d. " Lord's Table," 1 Cor. x., 21. Table here stands by a 
usual figure for the provisions spread upon it. It is the table at 
which the Lord invites his guests, and at which he presides. 

4th. " Communion," 1 Cor. x., 16. In partaking of this sac- 
rament, the fellowship of the believer with Christ is established 
and exercised in a mutual giving and receiving, and consequently 
also the fellowship of believers with one another, through Christ. 

5th. " Breaking of bread," Acts ii., 42. Here the symbolical 
action of the officiating minister is put for the whole service. 

2. By what other terms was it designated in the early church 1 

1st. " Eucharist," from Evxagiorecj, to give thanks. See Matt, 
xxvi., 27. This beautifully designates it as a thanksgiving ser- 
vice. It is both the cup of thanksgiving, whereby we celebrate 
the grace of God and pledge our gratitude to him, and the cup 
of blessing, or the consecrated cup. 



504 the lord's supper. 

2d. " Svvagig" a coming together, because the sacrament was 
administered in the public congregation. 

3d. " KuTovyyia" a sacred ministration, applied to the sacra- 
ment by way of eminence. From this word is derived the Eng- 
lish word liturgy. 

4th. " Qvoia," sacrifice offering. " This term was not applied 
to the sacrament in the proper sense of a propitiatory sacrifice. 
But (1.) because it was accompanied with a collection and obla- 
tion of alms ; (2.) because it commemorated the true sacrifice of 
Christ on the cross ; (3.) because it was truly a eucharistical sac- 
rifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. xiii., 15 ; (4.) because, in 
the style of the ancients, every religious action, whereby we con- 
secrate any thing to God for his glory and our salvation, is called 
a sacrifice." 

5th. 'Aydnn. The Agapas, or love feasts, were meals at which 
all the communicants assembled, and in connection with which 
they received the consecrated elements. Hence the name of the 
feast was given to the sacrament itself. 

6th. Mvgttjqiov, a mystery, or a symbolical revelation of truth, 
designed for the special benefit of initiated Christians. This was 
applied to both sacraments. In the Scriptures it is applied to all 
the doctrines of revelation, Matt, xiii., 11 ; Col. i., 26. 

7th. Missa, mass. The principal designation used by the 
Latin church. The most probable derivation of this term is from 
the ancient formula of dismission. When the sacred rites were 
finished the deacons called out, " Ite, missa est," go it is dis- 
charged. — Turrettin, L. 19, Q. 21. 

3. How is this sacrament defined, and what are the essential 
points included in the definition ? 

See L. Cat., Q. 168 ; S. Cat., Q. 96. 

The essential points of this definition are, 1st, the elements, 
bread and wine, given and received according to the appointment 
of Jesus Christ. 2d. The design of the recipient of doing this in 
obedience to Christ's appointment, in remembrance of him, to 
show forth his death till he come. 3d. The promised presence of 
Christ in the sacrament by his Spirit, "so that the worthy re- 
ceivers are not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, 



BREAKING OF BEEAD. 505 

made partakers of Christ's body and blood, with all his benefits, 
to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace/' 

4. What kind of bread is to be used in the sacrament, and 
what is the usage of the different churches on this point ? 

Bread of some kind is essential, 1st, from the command of 
Christ ; 2d, from the significance of the symbol ; since bread, as 
the principal natural nourishment of our bodies, represents his 
flesh, which, as living breach he gave for the life of the world, 
John vi., 51. But the kind of bread, whether leavened or un- 
leavened, is not specified in the command, nor is it rendered essen- 
tial by the nature of the service. Lutherans and many Baptists 
maintain that the use of unleavened bread is essential. The 
Romish church uses unleavened bread, although she does not 
affirm it to be essential. — Cat. Rom., Pt. II., Chap. IV., Q. 13. 
The Greek church uses leavened bread. 

5. What is the meaning of the term divog, wine, in the New 
Testament, and how does it appear that ivine and no other liquid 
must be used in the Lord's supper ? 

It is evident from the usage of this word in the -New Testa- 
ment that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the 
fermented juice of the grape, Matt, ix., 17 ; John ii., 3-10 ; Rom. 
xiv., 21 ; Eph. v., 18 ; 1 Tim. iii., 8 ; v., 23 ; Titus ii., 3. 

The Romish church contends, on the authority of tradition, 
that water should be mingled with the wine. But this has not 
been commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical 
significance of the rite. That wine and no other liquid is to be 
used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt, xxvi., 26- 
29, and from the usage of the apostles. 

6. How does it appear that breaking the bread is an impor- 
tant part of the service ? 

1st. The example of Christ in the act of institution, which is 
particularly noticed in each inspired record of the matter, Matt. 
xxvi., 26 ; Mark xiv., 22 ; Luke xxii., 19 ; 1 Cor. xi., 24. 

2d. It is prominently set forth in the reference made by the 
apostles to the sacrament in the epistles, 1 Cor. x., 16. The en- 
tire service is designated from this one action. 



506 THE lord's supper. 

3d. It pertains to the symbolical significancy of the sacrament. 
(1.) It represents the breaking of Christ's body for us, 1 Cor. xi., 
24. (2.) It represents the communion of believers, being many in 
one body, 1 Cor. x., 17. 

7. What is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor. x., 16, and in 
what sense are the elements to be blessed or consecrated f 

The phrase to bless is used in Scripture only in three senses, 
1st, to bless God, i. e., to declare his praises, and to utter our 
gratitude to him. 2d. To confer blessing actually, as God does 
upon his creatures. 3d. To invoke the blessing of God upon any 
person or thing. 

The " cup of blessing which we bless" is the consecrated cup 
upon which the minister has invoked the divine blessing. As the 
blessing of God is invoked upon food, and it is thus consecrated 
unto the end of its natural use, 1 Tim. iv., 5, so the elements are 
set apart as sacramental signs of an invisible spiritual grace, to 
the end of showing forth Christ's death, and of ministering grace 
to the believing recipient, by the invocation by the minister of 
God's blessing in the promised presence of Christ through his 
Spirit. 

8. What is the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation ? 

Transubstantiation means " conversion of substance," and is 
used by the Romanists to designate their dogma that when the 
words of consecration are pronounced by the priest the whole 
substance of the bread is changed into the very body of Christ 
which was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right 
hand of the Father in heaven, and the whole substance of the 
wine is changed into the blood of Christ, while only the species 
or visible appearance of the bread and wine remain, accidents 
without a substance ; and that, together with his real flesh and 
blood, the entire person of the God-man, humanity and divinity, 
is really physically present. — Council of Trent, Sess. 13., Cans. 1 
and 2 ; Cat. Rom., Pt. II., Chap. IV., Q. 22. 

Almost immediately after the apostolic age the Christian 
church began to leave the simplicity of the gospel, and to exalt 
the outward symbols and services of religion above the spiritual 
truth which they represented. Thus gradually the New Testa- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 507 

ment ministry became a priesthood, and more and more supersti- 
tious views were entertained as to the efficacy and necessity of the 
sacraments, and as to the manner in which the literal body and 
blood of Christ is physically present in the supper. The doctrine 
in its present form, however, was first defined and affirmed by 
Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbey, A. D. 831. After many con- 
troversies it was first decreed as an article of faith and a univers- 
ally recognized dogma of the church, and designated by the term 
transubstantiation, at the instance of Innocent III., by the fourth 
Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.— Mosheim Eccl. Hist., Cen. IX, Pt. 
II., Chap. III., and Cen. XIII., Pt. II., Chap. III. 

9. Present an outline of the argument against this Popish doc- 
trine ? 

1st. The Romanists seek to establish their doctrine by three 
arguments, (1.) Scripture, (2.) tradition, (3.) decisions of councils. 
But we have above, (Chap. V.), proved that the Scriptures are 
the only rule of faith and judge of controversies. Their scriptural 
authority is nothing more than the language used by Christ in 
instituting the sacrament, Matt, xxvi., 26. They claim that the 
word " is" must be understood literally. Protestants insist, on 
the contrary, that this word, from the plain sense of the passage, 
and from the analogy of Scripture usage in many other passages, 
simply means represents, symbolizes. — See Gen. xli., 26, 27 ; Ex. 
xii., 11 ; Dan. vii., 24 ; Rev. i., 20. 

2d. Paul calls one of the elements bread, as well after as be- 
fore its consecration, 1 Cor. x., 16 ; xi., 26-28. 

3d. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition of 
a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the fathers 
in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., the sign 
and the thing signified. See above, Chap. XXXVIII., question 
2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these to- 
gether. 

4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are as 
much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle recorded 
in the Bible contradicted the senses,, but, on the contrary, the re- 
ality of the miracle was established by the testimony of the senses. 
See the transubstantiation of water into wine, John ii., 1-10, and 
Luke xxiv., 36-43. But this doctrine flatly contradicts our senses, 



508 THE lord's supper. 

since we see, smell, taste and touch the bread and wine as well 
after their consecration as before. 

5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation, 
and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted by 
any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, Chap. 
II., question 11. But this doctrine contradicts the principles of 
reason (1.) with respect to the nature of Christ's body, by sup- 
posing that, although it is material, it may be, without division, 
wholly present in heaven, and at many different places on earth 
at the same time. (2.) In maintaining that the body and blood 
of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without any of their 
sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities of the bread 
and wine are present, while the bodies to which they belong are 
absent. But qualities have no existence apart from the bodies 
to which they belong. 

6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of priest- 
craft entirely antichristian, including the worship of the host, the 
sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitution of the priest 
and his work in the place of Christ and his work. It also blas- 
phemously subjects the awful divinity of our Saviour to the con- 
trol of his sinful creatures, who at their own will call him down 
from heaven, and withhold or communicate him to the people. 

10. What is the Lutheran doctrine of consul stantiation ? 

Consubstantiation (literally constituting of the same sub- 
stance) was the term used by Luther to designate his doctrine, 
that while the bread and wine continue the same that they were 
before, and what they appear to our senses to be, the body and 
blood of Christ are nevertheless literally and corporeally present 
in a miraculous manner, in, with, and under the sensible ele- 
ments. 

This view agrees with that of the Romanists, in asserting — 

1st. A real corporeal and local presence of the body and blood 
of Christ in the sacrament. 

2d. That they are received by the mouth. 

3d. That they are received equally by the believer and un- 
believer. 

But it differs from the Romish doctrine, in denying — 



CONSUBSTANTIATION. 509 

1st. That the bread and wine are changed. 

2d. That the union of the person of Christ with the elements 
is effected by the power of the officiating priest. 

3d. In confining the presence of Christ's person within and 
under the elements to the very moment of the sacramental cele- 
bration. It follows that although this doctrine is false, absurd, 
and injurious, it is by no means so fatally dangerous as that of 
transubstantiation. It does not lead to the idolatrous worship 
of the host, to the denial of the cup to the laity, nor to the anti- 
christian sacrifice of the mass. 

11. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches as to the 
nature of Christ's presence in the supper ? 

On account of the controversy on the subject of the real pres- 
ence which raged immediately after the Eeformation, between the 
Lutherans and the Keformecl, and between Calvin and the imme- 
diate followers of Zuingle, the early Reformed Confessions were 
composed generally under the bias of an effort to compromise 
radically distinct views, and hence a want of definiteness and con- 
sistency in their statements upon this subject has resulted. In 
all essentials, however, they agree, and immediately after the age 
of controversy, the language of all the confessions subsequently 
composed, and of theological writers, became both distinct and 
uniform. They agree in holding — 

1st. That the human nature of Christ is confined to heaven. 

2d. That the presence of his body and blood in the sacrament 
is not physical, nor local, nor to our bodily senses, but only by 
its gracious influences to the mind, and by the power of the Holy 
Ghost. 

3d. That they are received only by the true believer, not by 
the mouth, but only spiritually, in the exercise of faith. See 
Consensus Tigminus, article 21 ; Helv. Conf., Chap. XXI. — Bib. 
Rep., April, 1848. 

12. What is meant by the body and blood of Christ as received 
in the sacrament ? 

" The whole church united in saying that believers received 
the body and blood of Christ. They agreed in explaining this 



510 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

to mean that they received the virtue, efficacy, or vigor of his 
body and blood. But some understood thereby, the virtue of his 
body as broken, and his blood as shed, i. e., their sacrificial effi- 
cacy. Others said, that besides this, there was a mysterious vir- 
tue in the body of Christ, due to its union with the divine nature, 
which virtue was by the Holy Spirit conveyed to the believer/' 
The first view, or that which limits the reception of Christ's body 
and blood to their sacrificial efficacy, is the true one, and the only 
one which maintained its ground in the faith of the Keformed 
churches. — Bib. Kep., April, 1848. 

13. What is meant by feeding upon the body and blood of 
Christ, as used in the Reformed confessions ? 

" All the Keformed agree as to the following particulars : 
" 1st. This eating was not with the mouth in any manner. 
" 2d. It was only by the soul that they were received. 
" 3d. It was by faith, which is declared to be the hand and 

mouth of the soul. 

" 4th. It was by or through the power of the Holy Ghost." 
" But this receiving Christ's body is not confined to the Lord's 

supper ; it takes place whenever faith in him is exercised." — Bib. 

Kep., April, 1848. 

14. What is the Zuinglian doctrine as to the relation be- 
tween the sign and the thing signified in the supper 1 

The bread and wine in this view are regarded as simply signs, 
symbolizing the body and blood of Christ sacrificially broken and 
shed. There is no other presence of Christ than as he is thought 
of and believed in by the soul. 

15. In what sense and on what ground do the Romanists re- 
present the eucharist as a sacrifice ? 

" The sacrifice of the mass is an external oblation of the body 
and blood of Christ offered to God in recognition of his supreme 
Lordship, under the appearance of bread and wine visibly exhibited 
by a legitimate minister, with the addition of certain prayers and 
ceremonies prescribed by the church for the greater worship of 
God and edification of the people." — Dens, Vol. V., p. 358. 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 511 

With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 1st, 
Latreuticum, or an act of supreme worship offered to God. 2d. 
Eucharisticum, thanksgiving. 3d. Propitiatorium, atoning for 
sin, and propitiating God by the offering up of the body and 
blood of Christ again. 4th. Imperatorium, since through it we 
attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings. — Dens, Vol. v., 
p. 368. 

The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a 
sacrifice is very great, and is twofold ; as a sacrament it is per- 
fected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy consists in its 
oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a source of 
merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, but also of 
satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the dead. — Cat. 
Rom., Pt. II., Chap. IV., Q. 55 ; Council Trent, Sess. 22. 

They found this doctrine upon the authority of the church, 
and absurdly appeal to Mai. i., 11, as a prophecy of this perpetu- 
ally recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Heb. vii., 17, that 
Christ is "a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," who, 
say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering bread and 
wine to Abraham, Gen. xiv., 18. 

16. How may this doctrine be refuted ? 

1st. It has no foundation whatever in Scripture. Their ap- 
peal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation of 
Melchizedec to Christ, is self-evidently absurd. 

2d. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation, 
which was disproved above, question 9. 

3d. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect, and from 
its essential nature excludes all others, Heb. ix., 25-28 ; x., 10- 
14, and 18, 26, 27. 

4th. It is inconsistent with the words of institution pronounced 
by Christ, Luke xxii., 19, and 1 Cor. xi., 24-26. The sacrament 
commemorates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and conse- 
quently can not be a new propitiatory sacrifice itself. For the 
same reason the essence of a sacrament is different from that of a 
sacrifice. The two can not coexist in the same ordinance. 

5th. It belonged to the veiy essence of all propitiatory sacri- 
fices, as well to the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament, as to 
the all perfect one of Christ, that life should be taken, that blood 



512 THE lord's supper. 

should be shed, since it consisted in vicariously suffering the pen- 
alty of the law, Heb. ix., 22. But the Papists themselves call 
the mass a bloodless sacrifice, and it is wholly without pain or 
death. 

6th. A sacrifice implies a priest to present it, but the Christian 
ministry is not a priesthood. See above, Chap. XXI., question 21. 

17. What is the Lutheran view as to the efficacy of the sacra- 
ment 'i 

The Lutheran view on this point is that the efficacy of the 
sacrament resides not in the signs, but in the word of God con- 
nected with them, and that it is operative only when there is true 
faith in the receiver. It, however, lays stress upon the virtue of 
the literal body and blood of Christ as present in, with, and un- 
der, the bread and wine. This body and blood, being physically 
received equally by the believer and unbeliever, but being of gra- 
cious avail only in the case of the believer. — Luther's Small Cat., 
Part V. 

18. What is the view of the Reformed churches upon this sub- 
ject ? 

They rejected the Eomish view which regards the efficacy of 
the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic property, 
as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran view as 
far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent supernatural 
power, due indeed not to the signs, but to the word of God which 
accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is always operative, 
provided there be faith in the receiver. And, thirdly, they re- 
jected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, that the sacra- 
ment is a mere badge of profession, or an empty sign of Christ 
and his benefits. It is declared to be an efficacious means of 
grace ; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue 
in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely to the attend- 
ing operation of the Holy Ghost (virtus Spiritus Sancti ex- 
trinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the word. It has 
indeed the moral objective power of significant emblems and seals 
of divine appointment, just as the word has its inherent moral 
power ; but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the 
case of the word, on the cooperation of the Holy Ghost. Hence 



THE CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION. 513 

the power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted 
without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined to the 
time, place, or service. — Bib. Ref, April, 1848 ; see Gal. Conf., 
Arts. 36 and 37 ; Helv. ii., c. 21 ; Scotch Conf., Art. 21 ; 28th 
and 29th Articles of Church of England ; also our own standards, 
Conf. Faith, Chap. XXIX., sec. 7. 

19. What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for 
admission to the Lord's supper ? 

1st. Only those who are truly regenerated by the Holy Grhost 
are qualified, and only those who from their own profession and 
walk are to be presumed regenerate are to be admitted. 

2d. Wicked and ignorant persons, and those who know them- 
selves not to be regenerate, are not qualified, and ought not to be 
admitted by the church officers. — Conf. Faith, Chap. XXIX., 
section 8 ; L. Cat., question 173. 

3d. But since many who doubt as to their being in Christ are 
nevertheless genuine Christians, so if one thus doubting unfeign- 
edly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity, 
he ought to labor to have his doubts resolved, and, so doing, to 
come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strengthened. — 
L. Cat., question 172. 

4th. " Children born within the pale of the visible church, 
and dedicated to G-od in baptism, when they come to years of 
discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, 
and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they 
ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come 
to the Lord's supper." " The years of discretion in young Chris- 
tians can not be precisely fixed. This must be left to the pru- 
dence of the eldership." — Direct, for Worsh., Chap. IX. 

20. What is the practice which prevails in the different 
churches on this subject, and on what principles does such prac- 
tice rest ? 

1st. The Romanists make the condition of salvation to be union 
with and obedience to the church, and, consequently, admit all to 
the sacraments who express their desire to conform and obey. 
" No one," however, "conscious of mortal sin, and having an 
opportunity of recurring to a confessor, however contrite he may 



514 THE lord's supper. 

deem himself, is to approach the holy eucharist, until he is puri- 
fied by sacramental confession." — Coun. Trent, sess. 13, canon 11. 
The Lutherans agree with them in admitting all who conform to 
the external requirements of the church. 

2d. High Church prelatists, and others who regard the sacra- 
ments as in themselves effective means of grace, maintain that 
even those who, knowing themselves to be destitute of the fruits 
of the Spirit, nevertheless have speculative faith in the gospel, 
and are free from scandal, and desire to come, should be ad- 
mitted. 

3d. The faith and practice of all the evangelical churches is 
that the communion is designed only for believers, and therefore, 
that a credible profession of faith and obedience should be re- 
quired of every applicant. (1.) The Baptist churches denying 
altogether the right of infant church membership, receive all ap- 
plicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore 
demand positive evidences of the new birth of all. (2.) All the 
Pedobaptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in 
infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between 
the admission of the children of the church to the communion, 
and the admission de novo to the church of the unbaptized alien 
from the world. With regard to the former, the presumption is 
that they should come to the Lord's table when they arrive at 
u years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear to be 
sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the 
Lord's body." In the case of the unbaptized worldling, the pre- 
sumption is that they are aliens until they bring a credible pro- 
fession of a change. 

21. How may it be proved that the Lord's supper is not de- 
signed for the unrenewed ? 

It can, of course, be designed only for those who are spirit- 
ually qualified to do in reality what every recipient of the sacra- 
ment does in form, and professedly. But this ordinance is essen- 
tially — 

1st. A profession of Christ. 

2d. A solemn covenant to accept Christ and his gospel, and 
to fulfill the conditions of discipleship. 

3d. An act of spiritual communion with Christ. 



CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION. 515 

The qualifications for acceptable communion, therefore, are 
such knowledge, and such a spiritual condition as shall enable 
the recipient intelligently and honestly to discern in the emblems 
the Lord's body as sacrificed for sin, to contract with him the 
gospel covenant, and to hold fellowship with him through the 
Spirit. 

22. What have the church and its officers a right to require 
of those tvhom they admit to the Lord's supper ? 

" The officers of the church are the judges of the qualifications 
of those to be admitted to sealing ordinances." " And those so 
admitted shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety." — 
Direct, for Worsh., Chap. IX. As God has not endowed any of 
these officers with the power of reading the heart, it follows that 
the qualifications of which they are the judges are simply those 
of competent knowledge, purity of life, and credible profession of 
faith. It is their duty to examine the applicant as to his knowl- 
edge, to watch and inquire concerning his walk and conversation, 
to set before him faithfully the inward spiritual qualifications re- 
quisite for acceptable communion, and to hear his profession of 
that spiritual faith and purpose. The responsibility of the act 
then rests upon the individual professor, and not upon the ses- 
sion, who are never to be understood as passing judgment upon, 
or as indorsing the validity of his evidences. 

23. What is the difference between the Presbyterian and the 
Congregational churches upon this point ? 

There exists a difference between the traditionary views and 
practice of these two bodies of Christians with respect to the abil- 
ity, the right, and the duty of church officers, of forming and 
affirming a positive official judgment upon the inward spiritual 
character of applicants for church privileges. The Congregation- 
alists understand by " credible profession" the positive evidence- 
of a religious experience which satisfies the official judges of the 
gracious state of the applicant. The Presbyterians understand 
by that phrase only an intelligent profession of true spiritual: 
faith in Christ, which is not contradicted by the life. 

Dr. Candlish, in the Edinburgh Witness, June 8th, 1848, 
says, " The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the 



516 THE lord's supper. 

Presbyterian church has always held it, does not constitute the 
pastor, elders, or congregation, judges of the actual conversion of 
the applicant ; but, on the contrary, lays much responsibility 
upon the applicant himself. The minister and kirk session must 
be satisfied as to his competent knowledge, credible profession, 
and consistent walk. They must determine negatively that there 
is no reason for pronouncing him not to be a Christian, but they 
do not undertake the responsibility of positively judging of his 
conversion. This is the Presbyterian rule of discipline, be it 
right or wrong, differing materially from that of the Congrega- 
tionalists. In practice there is room for much dealing with the 
conscience under either rule, and persons destitute of knowledge 
and of a credible profession are excluded." 



APPENDICES. 



A. 

I. The Apostles' Creed, so called, "but known to have assumed 
its present form only gradually. It has, however, been in sub- 
stantially its present form the creed of the whole Christian 
church ever since the close of the second century. The clauses 
which were the latest added to the creed are, " he descended into 
hell," " the communion of saints," and " the life everlasting." 
See Mosheim, Cen. I., Part II., Chap. III. ; Bingham's Christ. 
Ant., Book X., Chapter III. 

I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and 
earth ; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord ; who was 
conceived by the Holy Ghost ; born of the Virgin Mary ; suf- 
fered under Pontius Pilate ; was crucified, dead and buried : he 
descended into hell ; the third day he rose again from the dead, 
he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God 
the Father almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the 
quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy cath- 
olic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the 
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. 

II. The Nicene Creed, as it was actually enacted by the 
Council of Nice, A. D. 325. 

We believe in one God the Father almighty, the maker of all 
things, visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, begotten of the Father ; only begotten, (that is,) 
of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, 
very God of very God ; begotten, not made ; of the same sub- 



k 



518 APPENDIX. 

stance with, the Father ; by whom all things were made, that 
are in heaven and that are in earth ; who for us men, and for 
our salvation, descended, and was incarnate, and became man ; 
suffered, and rose again the third day ; ascended into the heavens, 
and will come to judge the living and the dead : and in the Holy 
Spirit. But those who say, that there was a time when he was 
not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was 
made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance 
or essence, or that the Son of God is created, and mutable or 
changeable, the Catholic church doth pronounce accursed. 

III. The creed set forth by the Council of Constantinople, 
called by Theodosius the Great, A. D. 381, and the second oecu- 
menical council. This is the creed used in the Catholic, Lu- 
theran, and English churches, and erroneously styled the Nicene 
Creed, a true version of which I have given above, from which 
this Constantinopolitan creed differs chiefly in being much more 
full and definite in the article concerning the Holy Ghost. It 
was for the purpose of condemning errors concerning the person- 
ality and divinity of the third Person of the Trinity, which had 
prominently emerged since the Council of Nice, that the Council 
of Constantinople enacted these additional definitive clauses. — 
Mosheim, Cen. IV., Part II., Chap. V. 

I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven 
and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ; and in one 
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his 
Father before all worlds ; God of God, Light of Light, very God 
of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the 
Father ; by whom all things were made ; who for us men, and 
for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by 
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was 
crucified, also for us, under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was 
buried ; and the third day he rose again according to the Scrip- 
tures ; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand 
of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both 
the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end. And 
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who pro- 
ceedeth from the Father and the Son (this phrase " filioque" was 
added to the creed of Constantinople by the council of the western 



APPENDIX. 519 

church held at Toledo, A. D., 589), who, with the Father and 
the Son together, is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the 
prophets. And I believe one Catholic and apostolic church, I 
acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins ; and I look for 
the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. 

IV. The Athanasian Creed, so called, vulgarly ascribed to the 
great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, from about A. D. 328 
to A. D. 373, and the leader of the orthodox party in the church 
in opposition to the arch heretic, Arms. " But the best and latest 
critics, who have examined the thing most exactly, make no ques- 
tion but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Yigilius 
Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the 
fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution/' — 
Bingham's Christian Antiquities, Bk, X., Chap. IV. 

1. Whosoever wishes to be saved, it is above all necessary for 
him to hold the Catholic faith. 2. Which, unless each one shall 
preserve perfect and inviolate, he shall certainly perish for ever. 
3. But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in 
trinity, and trinity in unity. 4. Neither confounding the persons, 
nor separating the substance. 5. For the person of the Father is 
one, of the Son another, and of the Holy Ghost another. 6. But 
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost there is one 
divinity, equal glory and coeternal majesty. 7. What the Father 
is, the same is the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 8. The Father is 
uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Ghost uncreated. 9. The 
Father is immense, the Son immense, the Holy Ghost immense. 
10. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eter- 
nal. 11. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. 
12. So there are not three (beings) uncreated, nor three immense, 
but one uncreated, and one immense. 13. In like manner the 
Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Ghost is 
omnipotent. 14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but 
one omnipotent, 15. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, 
the Holy Ghost is God. 16. And yet there are not three Gods, 
but one God. 17. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and 
the Holy Ghost is Lord. 18. And yet there are not three Lords, 
but one Lord. 19. Because we are thus compelled by Christian 
verity to confess each person severally to be God and Lord ; so 



520 APPENDIX. 

we are prohibited by the Catholic religion from saying that there 
are three Gods or Lords. 20. The Father was made from none, 
nor created, nor begotten. 21. The Son is from the Father alone, 
neither made, nor created, but begotten. 22. The Holy Ghost is 
from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor be- 
gotten, but proceeding. 23. Therefore there is one Father, not 
three fathers, one Son, not three sons, one Holy Ghost, not three 
Holy Ghosts. 24. And in this trinity there is nothing first or 
last ; nothing greater or less. 25. But all the three coeternal 
persons are coequal among themselves ; so that through all, as is 
above said, both unity in trinity, and trinity in unity is to be 
worshiped. 26. Therefore, he who wishes to be saved must 
think thus concerning the trinity. 27. But it is necessary to 
eternal salvation that he should also faithfully believe in the in- 
carnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 28. It is, therefore, true 
faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
both God and man. 29. He is God, generated from eternity from 
the substance of the Father ; man, born in time from the sub- 
stance of his mother. 30. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting 
of a rational soul and human flesh. 31. Equal to the Father in 
respect to his divinity, less than the Father in respect to his hu- 
manity. 32. Who, although he is God and man, is not two but 
one Christ. 33. But one, not from the conversion of his divinity 
into flesh, but from the assumption of his humanity into God. 
34. One not at all from confusion of substance, but from unity 
of person. 35. For as a rational soul and flesh is one man, so 
God and man is one Christ. 36. Who suffered for our salvation, 
descended into hell, the third day rose from the dead. 37. As- 
cended to heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father 
omnipotent, whence he shall come to judge the living and the 
dead. 38. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their 
bodies, and shall render an account for their works. 39. And 
they who have done well shall go into life eternal ; they who 
have done evil into eternal fire. 40. This is the Catholic faith, 
which, unless a man shall faithfully and firmly believe, he can 
not be saved. 



APPENDIX 521 



B. 



As the system of doctrine commonly designated Calvinism, 
from its ablest expounder, the illustrious reformer of Geneva, was 
in fact first clearly defined and advocated by the great St. Augus- 
tin, bishop of Hippo, in Northern Africa, during the last years 
of the ^fourth and the first of the fifth century, so that antagonist 
system, now generally known as Arminianism, from the fact that 
its most able and prominent modern advocates, the Remonstrants, 
of Holland, were led, in the order of time, by James Arminius, 
professor of theology in the University of Leyden, from 1602 to 
1609, was really in the first instance set forth by John Cas- 
siantjs, an Eastern monk settled in Marseilles, in France, during 
the first half of the fifth century. The advocates of this system 
were at first called Massilians (from Massilia, Marseilles), and 
afterwards, by the schoolmen, Semipelagians. 

During the controversies which immediately preceded the 
General Synod of Dort, in Holland, A. D. 1618 and 1619 (when 
the churches of England, Scotland, Holland, the Palatinate, and 
Switzerland, united in condemning, by their representatives, this 
doctrine, and in reasserting Calvinism as the faith of the Keformed 
churches), the Kemonstrants set forth their position, as contrasted 
with the established doctrine of the Protestant churches, in five 
propositions. These are known as the five points of contro- 
versy between the disciples of Arminius and of Calvin. These, 
as given by Mosheim, Cent. XVII.. Sec. II., Part II., Chap. III., 
are as follows : 

1st. " That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salva- 
tion on those who, as he foresaw, would persevere unto the end 
in their faith in Jesus Christ, and to inflict everlasting punish- 
ment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist, 
to the end of life, his divine succours. 

2d. " That Jesus Christ, by his death and sufferings, made an 
atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of every indi- 
vidual in particular ; that, however, none but those who believe 
in him can be partakers of that divine benefit. 

3d. " That true faith can not proceed from the exercise of our 
natural faculties and powers, or from the force and operation of 



522 APPENDIX. 

free will, since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is 
incapable of thinking or doing any good thing ; and that there- 
fore it is necessary to his conversion and salvation that he be re- 
generated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which 
is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. 

4th. " That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost, 
which heals the disorders of a corrupt nature, begins, advances, 
and brings to perfection every thing that can be called good in 
man ; and that, consequently, all good works, without exception, 
are to be attributed to God alone, and to the operation of his 
grace ; that, nevertheless, this grace does not force the man to act 
against his inclination, but may be resisted and rendered ineffec- 
tual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner. 

5th. " That they who are united to Christ by faith are there- 
by furnished with abundant strength and succor sufficient to en- 
able them to triumph over the seductions of Satan, and the allure- 
ments of sin ; nevertheless they may, by the neglect of these suc- 
cors, fall from grace, and, dying in such a state, may finally 
perish. This point was stated at first doubtfully, but afterwards 
positively as a settled doctrine." 

It must be remembered that this statement was put forth dur- 
ing the early stages of this controversy, while the Kemonstrants 
were deprecating all ecclesiastical investigation of their divergen- 
cies from the creeds of the national church, and before, in fact, 
their system had been thoroughly elaborated by their own teachers. 
The fundamental positions set forth in these five points led by 
logical necessity to that rationalistic anti-evangelical system ma- 
tured by the later Eemonstrant theologians, and presenting un- 
scriptural views upon almost every question concerning Christi- 
anity, as concerning our federal relation to Adam, original sin, 
predestination, providence, redemption, free will, grace, faith, re- 
generation, justification, sanctification, perseverance, good works, 
etc., etc. 

THE END. 



; Nov . 8 I860. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce! 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIf™ 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dm 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



